Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/1

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Withdrawn by nominator; several comments were made. Since a firm support or oppose was never given, I believe the appropriate judgement call is that the outcome from last reveiw still stands. Gbern3 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC). (Result modified for clarity by Geometry guy 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC).)

I'm bringing this article to GAR because I believe it meets the GA criteria. I'm not renominating it because this article has already been through the GA process once and failed. I wanted to GAR it then but the main page says it's best to just renominate it. So I did and it just failed GA for a second time yesterday so now I'm bringing it here.

My second reviewer failed the article because he/she believes it doesn't meet criteria 3a; that the article needs more information in it that you would find in a "personal life" section. I disagree primarily because there is an "early life" section that provides the same information that you would see in a "personal life" section. In addition the infobox gives more fast facts. This article also has a sister wikiquote page for people who want more information.


 * 1) I got this article peer reviewed in October and it wasn't brought up as a problem there. I also got it copyedited and my copyeditor, Per Edman stated that it was "well-rounded". So I don't believe this is an issue of routine. As in, this is how biographical reviews normally go; a "personal life" section is routinely asked for in peer review if it's missing.
 * 2) MOS:BIO does not state that there needs to be a "personal life" section in biographical articles so I know it's not a policy issue.
 * 3) Lastly, I went to Category:GA-Class biography articles just to make sure I'm not crazy. I picked eight random articles. Of those eight, four of them (Al Williamson, KevJumba, Auguste Rodin, Sun Tzu) did not have a "personal life" section. So it can't be an issue of precendence because precedence shows you don't need it.

I encourage you to read the full discussion here. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I didn't originally put this information here but now I feel the need to bring this up because I'm having an issue with my editor's integrity. Before I created this page, we got a second opinion from another editor and my reviewer failed the article an hour later and simultaneously brought up 10 bullet points of new issues he/she now has with the article, two of which I strongly feel are artificial/made-up. Read the "Conclusion" section here. Note: this was done without giving me opportunity to respond to either the 2nd opinion or the new issues. I just think that's wrong. Just so you're aware, the editor who provided the second opinion was very neutral and did not state whether they felt the article should pass or fail. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was the reviewer in this instance and, for the record, I'm a he. I failed the article with great reluctance because it did not appear to me that progress was being made towards addressing my concerns. As I've just told Gbern3 at Talk:Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/GA2, very few edits have been made to the article since I took over and he insists on rebutting my every word rather than attempting to improve the article. On the technical matter of 3a, besides the early life section (which is very good, as far as it goes) there is absolutely nothing on what they do other than choreograph. I know where they grew up, I know how they started dancing and I know what they do now and what the highlights of their career have been. I don't know if they have children, who their parents are, which branch of the military he served in, why he didn't got to medical school like he planned, how they met (other than "at UNLV"). It doesn't require great detail, but reading the article, you get a feeling that something's missing from it. I won't return here unless asked to because I think it would be best all round for uninvolved editors to come to their own conclusions now I've explained my decision to fail it. Also, for the record, this is not and never was anything personal. HJ Mitchell  |  April Fool!   15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have not yet reviewed the article closely enough to form a view on whether it meets the GA criteria, but I have a couple of comments based on past experience. Requirement 3a asks for broadness, not comprehensiveness, and in the past this has been interpreted as meaning that for articles on groups (or even individuals) in public life, detail on personal life is not required unless it has been of significant public interest (and hence there are reliable sources to back it up). Second, reviewing is a hard job: one of the reasons is that reviewers are often experienced editors with their own ideas on how to make an article better, but have to review the article how it is, not on how they think it should be. In this case the reviewer thought that the article should be written more like a biography, rather than a band. This goes beyond the GA criteria, and my advice would be to focus on whether the article can or does meet the GA criteria in its current format. Geometry guy 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have left it open, but, frankly, I have better things to do than have a nominator stonewall me, argue with every suggestion and generally do nothing to improve the article. He didn't attempt to address the concerns of the previous GAN nor my concerns, so I failed it. It's the first article I've ever failed (and I've reviewed 40) and I hope it will be the last, but GA requires effort. Now, please excuse me while i bang my head against a brick wall, I think it would be a more productive use of my time. HJ Mitchell  |  April Fool!   21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your frustration. That happens a lot on Wikipedia. Talk pages are the best place to discuss such matters. Geometry guy 22:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you please stop saying that I have not made an effort to improve the article. You keep asking me for material, tangential information (i.e. their parents indentities), that I do not have a reliable source for. I've told you eight times that I need a reliable source in order to add any of the information requested. Even the editor who provided a 2nd opinion brought this up; the availability of realiable sources This is how the article looked before I did a major rewrite. Please know that I care about improving the article. It's not that I don't see the value in having a "personal life" section. Check out the Stacy London article I did a major rewrite to. It has a "personal life" section. I put it there. I had reliable sources for it. I've Googled, Yahooed, Binged, Asked, Wikied, Kosmixed, CCed, and Exaleaded for every reliable source I could find for the Nappytabs article in order to please you. I've done the work. If there was another source with information like who their parents are, I would've found it. I have not purposely ignored your requests.


 * For example, in addition to who their parents are you wants to know if they have kids. They don't. I know this b/c I read their twitter. But twitter is not a reliable source . So how can I edit the article by adding this information if I don't have reliable source to prove it. Their parents: I haven't read anything about who their parents are or what they do. I don't even have an unrealiable source. So I can't respond to this request and edit the article at all. I need a reliable source . Why didn't Napoleon go to med school? I already answered that at the end of the "Early life" section. In short it's because he decided to become a choreographer. So since the information is already there, I don't need to make changes to the article . It's not that I'm purposely not improving the article and being open to suggestions. If you want me to add personal information, I need a reliable source . Please stop saying I'm not trying. Sorry for being long winded. I just felt I needed to say all this to make my point. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I said I'd be out of it, I'll answer that since it's directed st the azrticle and not at me. Essentailly, you're missing my point. It's not the laack of one of these pieces of informarion that the article falls down on (nor, for the record, is it about pleasing me, but I don;t think that was your point). It's the lack of any personal information after they were about 21 (making a general point, rather than specifically usinfg 21 as an example) that makes the article feel incomplete to even a casual reader. There's some stuff in your very first reference about how they find it working and living together. Most of it is, granted, tabloid crap and fancruft, but if there isn't something in there that's useable, it's likely that exists elsewhere. It's not about being able to name parents and grandparents and great aunts twice removed, it's about having a little more to the article than a record of their career (and that's not meant slightingly, it's obvious that you've put good work into the article) and it could very easilyy sit next to the career stuff rather than havign its own section. I apologise for the typos and any incoherency but it's late here and I've spent my whole day on a train. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   23:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The article looks pretty good in most respects, but I can see where HJM is coming from. I have only read two references so far - both already used in the article: "Talking about the Impact of Dance with Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo..." and "Everyone has a story:" - and I've already established: The former fact is not in the WP article; the second is only in the infobox. In contrast, the same reference ("talking...") is used as the citation for the fact that Napoleon went to Apple Valley High School, but that information is not in the reference. gbern has said in the text above that the refs were checked and s/he doesn't know who the parents are - yet at least one of those parents is named in only the second of the existing refs that i read. So my gut feeling is that this hasn't been prepared as thoroughly as gbern thinks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Napoleon served for four years in Germany
 * The couple live in Sherman Oaks
 * Tabitha's mother is Cynthia Cortopassi
 * I did not say above that the existing refs were checked and it was not my intention to come off this way. When HJM brought up incorporating more personal information I didn't recheck the refs I already had; I went searching for new ones which is why I provided all those links to the different search engines. I already knew about Napoleon serving in Germany but HJM asked for what branch of the military he was in and I don't have a source for that. The Talking about the Impact... reference I used as a source for Napoleon being in the military (which is why it appears right after "miliary" rather than at the end of the sentence), not for what high school he went to. I don't remember where I got that information from (his high school that is) and I know I don't have a source for it so I will remove it. Totally missed the mention of Tabitha's mother. My mistake. I will add the bit about Tabitha's mother but I do think under HJM's standards, (HJM you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't like talking for people) I would have had to provide more than this to get this article promoted. After all, it is still early life/before 21 information. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad we're making progress. After all, the aim here is to get a better article and I think we're getting somewhere. I probably wouldn't have passed it just yet but, again, rather than specific things, it's about building up a picture. If there's no source for the branch of the military, that's fine (likewise for his parents, grandparents and great aunts twice removed) and I often find things in references that I missed the first time I read them. The service in Germany is interesting (not hugely important, but it's part of the bigger picture). It's not about any one of the things I've mentioned specifically, they're all just examples but I think you might have misunderstood my point Gbern.
 * Btw, this (ref #3) could be useful for gleaning some more information. It mentions that Napoleon was planning to become a biologist rather than a physician is that might be worth a mention. My suggestion to you Gbern is to have a look through all the sources you've got already (which, for an article of this sort, are very good) to see if you can find a little more information- it just lacks information on what they do outside of work and I'm sure that there'll be some information of that sort in the existing sources. Also, as an aside, the flags in the infobox are probably in violation of MOS:FLAG but that's not a big issue. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with HJM about it being the overall biographical picture that is the issue. Gbern if you go back through the sources and see if you can build that picture any more (esp the more recent stuff), then the article will probably be OK at GA. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hamiltonstone. As always, your input is very much appreciated. Gbern, I agree with Hamitonstone and if that information can be found and added, I will not stand in the way of listing this. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   22:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I chime in on this? Coming into this as a late arrival--I noticed a post on one of the talk pages asking for another pair of eyes.  Here's my take on the article.  It could probably be filled out some more, based on the material I saw in the refs alone. These two sound interesting. The initial "back" life (early life) seems sketchy to me, and I think the advice about reviewing existing sources (those already in use) to glean a little more would be beneficial here.  I also think smoothing out some of the prose would help.  For example: what is the relationship with him enlisting and the family moving to Vegas?  If he was in the military, presumably he had left home.  So after he went into the military his parents and siblings moved to Vegas? Consequently, when he returned home, he returned to Vegas? Is this what you're saying?  Then I think you need to say, Napoleon enlisted in the military and served three years in Germany. While he was gone, his parents moved to Las Vegas. When he left the military, he returned to his parents house and attended UNLV.  Or something to that effect.
 * There are also many prose and style issues. The placement of punctuation vis a vis citations is inconsistent (I prefer the citations after punctuation, but I'm not sure that 's  MOS thing); there are various "awkward"moments--husband and wife  choreography team sentence in the lead is the one that jumped out immediately.  Additional uses of "choreograph" as a verb are not quite in the Transitive verb usage (you need subject and object).  Lots of the sentences are either too long or too short, but I would pass a GA despite the latter.  Does this help?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the sentence where you don't treat choreograph as a transitive verb: ''Napoleon and Tabitha have also choreographed for NFL and NBA dance teams..."
 * Oh, and btw. Sun Tzu is an ancient chinese military theoretician. Given the age of documents on, about, or by him, it is unlikely that there are sources to discuss his personal life.  it would be like having a personal life of Socrates or Noah.  Rodin and Al Williamson have material that normally would be included in a potential personal life section in the "early life" section. The last, a You Tube personality, ... I would have challenged that GA rating on the basis of this.  So don't claim, please, that a "personal life" coverage is not required in GA.  I'd say it is imperative, although in some cases material might not be available, or might be of dubious credibility. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial if my presence here were scaled down since I don't want to appear to be in anyone's face nor to be dominating the discussion, however the anorak in me can't help but answer the MoS points. Citations can go before or after punctuation (WP:FOOT I think) but the article must be consistent. As for the prose, while it's not brilliant here, 1a of WP:GA? is a lot less stringent than 1a of WP:FA? and there are no glaring spelling or grammar issues so far as I can see and the meaning is clear enough, imho, for GA. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Auntieruth55, to address your comment, I do not believe that personal life information shouldn't/isn't required in GA. The point I was trying to make was that I had already provided personal life information in the "early life" section. Aside from that, I looked through the sources I already had as requested and other than Tabitha's mom which hamiltonstone spotted, I was able to find their influences. Other personal information requested: where their passion for dancing comes from, whether or not they have kids, Napoleon's parents, and where/how specifically on UNLV they met, is not in there. Since I don't have sources, I can't provide this information. I'm going to close this discussion now. I think it's safe to say that this discussion is leaning toward "fail". // Gbern3 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)