Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wales/1

Wales

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Wales/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept This has been here six months and undergone a lot of trimming and sourcing in line with the reasons for delisting. I still feel there is more progress to be made with reducing the sections, but as it stands it I feel the Focus criteria is met. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page a week ago, "There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus)." buidhe 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A week is not very long, is it? I made a start but other editors need to be given a chance to comment and edit.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to close this reassessment unless you list the specific statements on this page that are unsourced. If you feel there is a problem then the onus is on you to point out what it is and not expect other editors to second guess you. With regards to the article size and placement of images, you've linked to guidelines, not policies. These are superceded by consensus and common sense. If the location of the images are a problem in your eyes, move them.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands does not meet the GA criteria. GA reassesments must be open at least a week and may only be closed by an uninvolved editor. You are welcome to voice your opinion which will be taken into account by the closer, but you are not uninvolved. buidhe 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) It wasn't a week, it was six days. (b) Triggering a formal reassessment with so little warning causes much more work (not to mention aggravation) than giving those interested time to bring the article up to scratch. Re-assess the article if you think that is the right path. Simply tagging unsourced paragraphs (and threatening loss of GA status on the project page) will not do.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reassesment can be open as long as necessary as long as improvements are being made. It isn't intended as a threat but as a process of improvement. b<b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "inline" part of the relevance template used.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way am I invloved? Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You expressed your personal opinion that the article should not be delisted. That's equivalent to !voting keep in an AfD and then closing the AfD as keep, which is not allowed. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think did express the opinion that the article should not be delisted.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I'm a little concerned about the interpretation of WP:INVOLVED here and suggest Buidhe reads it again. However, I see the article is being improved as we speak so I'm going to step back.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi all. Just a process note at this stage. I might get around to looking at the article at a later date. There is no guidelines on how long to wait before bringing an article up for reassessment. In my experience leaving a note at the talk page and waiting any length of time is the exception rather than the rule. Also I would not worry about the deadline. We require at least a week, but in practice these are left open much longer. As long as editors re working to get the article up to standard I don't see anyone closing it. The aim of everyone here is to improve it. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: As noted above, this article is far longer than our guidelines recommend. There are some obvious areas that can be cut, for example there is no need for historiography on such a high-level article. The section headering in History is also quite excessive. There are other areas throughout the article with headers covering a single paragraph of even a single sentence. "Cities" is a level 2 header that could be literally just a sentence in Demographics. There are also many tiny paragraphs throughout the article, which are discouraged by MOS. The Culture section lacks any sort of cohesive focus. There's nothing that tells the reader facts about Welsh culture, merely a series of sections with various specific examples. Lastly, there are various citation needed tags scattered throughout the article which should be fixed. CMD (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are clear now what is wrong with the article, and that probably doesn't need repeating. I just hope there are some editors willing to come and put it right so it can retain GA status. Sorry if this sounds grumpy (it probably is), but there are more than 900 editors watching this article.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some cites to the Transport and Music sections, which I think deals with the remaining Citation Needed and Failed Verification tags. Is the outstanding concern broadly about the length of the article? Wales's population puts it around the Albania/Puerto Rico mark, both of which have substantially longer articles, 245,347 bytes and 322,351 bytes compared with 209,487 bytes for Wales. I know that's a bit of an "Other stuff exists" argument, but it doesn't seem unduly long to me. That said, I'm sure there's some trimming/combining that could usefully be done. KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is not over-long by some standards, I agree, though some of the topics that have a main article could be reduced a little as some do "go on" a bit.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  10:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've had a go at combining some of the very short para.s and will have a look at doing some judicious trimming particularly, as you suggest, where's there's a corresponding Main article. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are specific guidelines regarding length and style, Summary style and Article size, which are included in the GA criteria. Wales is currently 40% longer than the 60kB of prose probably should be divided threshold. There's room for variation, but given country articles naturally come with numerous subpages, they have easy routes to become more concise.
 * Regarding citations, there's no tags, but there's clearly areas which lack sourcing. For example, over half of the Music section is currently unsourced. CMD (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

“probably should be divided threshold”? Not getting what you mean there. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, on re-reading, I think you’re saying it’s 40% over the threshold at which it should probably be divided. Don’t think I’d agree that it should be trimmed by 40%, nor do I think it infringes the GA criteria by not being. An article on an entire country will likely be longer than an article on a rather more circumscribed topic. As for sourcing, I think you’re probably closer to FA criteria requirements than GA. As a comparison, the USA, another country GA, is a third as long again, with about a third more sources. But there are clearly areas that can be tightened, and more strongly sourced, so we’ll crack on with those. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The most recent featured country article, Bulgaria, is currently at 53kB of prose, so that may be a good example of a country article which meets GA Criteria 3. As for sourcing, GA Criteria 2 is "Verifiable with no original research". CMD (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: United States is also undergoing GAR, with multiple editors commenting that its length is an issue. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

- Not entirely clear as to how community consensus is reached in GAR but wanted to note that there doesn't appear to be consensus here. The criticism had two limbs - uncited material and length. In my view, the first has been addressed, certainly to GA standards. The second is a matter of opinion, but I think it is clear that two editors, Tony and myself, both of whom contribute extensively to Welsh topics, are not of the view that it is overlong. I've pinged Tony in case I'm not representing his view accurately. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is too long, given that sections with main articles could be cut (even more).  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  08:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sourcing has improved in my view. On size, criteria 3b points to specific guidelines on the matter. The length is probably related to some minor MOS:OVERSECTIONing in the article. CMD (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Was going to close this as keep as while it is still a bit lengthy it probably just meets our requirements. I did make some edits to the article though and after another reading through again have a few more suggestions so thought I would put them here.
 * Shouldn't the Medieval Wales, Norman conquest and Annexation to England sections in history be combined. They cover the same era and fit under the same daughter article. They could then be reduced and summerised better.
 * Modern Wales is a bit too long. It smacks a bit of recentism and doesn't have a main article. I would suggest creating a main article and moving most of the info there.
 * I think the same could be done with climate. There is no main and things like the highest recorded temperature and other misc stats would fit in better if there was one.
 * The culture section is probably a bit bloated. I know it is hard to choose which ones are worth mentioning and everyone has different tastes they want to highlight, but there are main articles for each one so they can be trimmed without any real loss. I am not Welsh so it is hard for me to say what should be featured and what not. I do know a bit about sport and a whole paragraph on rugby and another on football are probably a bit excessive relative to the scope of the article (it also mentions hosting the World Cup twice). Cricket probably doesn't warrant two sentences and Tony Farrs mention seems disproportionate too.
 * Overall I would say as it stands it meets the GA criteria, it could just be fine tuned a bit more. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - Very much appreciate the interest and the helpful comments. I like the suggestions a lot and will look to action them over the next few days. The culture section is tricky, as it is hard to make value judgements on notability between different musicians etc. Just one point of difference - a mere paragraph on rugby is hardly sufficient! Football I know nothing about, but I shall ask Kossack. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If we can get away with a couple of sentences I am sure Wales could too. I don't know if it needs the four professional sides mentioned or the competitions outside the world cup and six nations. Also documenting a two year period of league being professional doesn't seem that relevant. You get a lot of if X is mentioned then we should mention Y. Sometimes it is better to not mention too much of either if we are trying to keep it overviewish (for example I am not sure any sporting person should get explicit mention unless they are extremely famous). For comparison Wales mentions 25 sportsmen (Gareth Edwards doesn't make the cut) while NZ mentions just Hillary. I am not suggesting that this is the blueprint for a country Good Article, it just happens to be the country article I am most familiar with. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)