Wikipedia:Peer review/Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/archive1

Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)
I need comments on whether the sections are unduly large. --Hemanshu 11:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're unduly large - I think it's more the writing style and neutrality, rather than any length issues. Ambi 03:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dittoed. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that the issues regarding neutrality and writing style have been dealt with, at least to an extent (or so I think, anyway), I've renominated this article for featured status. Possibly the GMA quote in the second paragraph should be replaced with something, but frankly I've been driven to distraction by harassment in the last two days or so and I haven't felt like doing the research to find a suitable replacement. Hopefully I'll find a way to improve that paragraph, though. Everyking 14:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If the article's not as best as you think you can make it, why renominate it? You seem to be very hurried &mdash; would it hurt to wait a day longer? As I've pointed out to you on your talk page, cooling down is a better investment of your time then continuing to stress yourself out. If you know the article could easily be improved further but can't do it now, why nominate it? Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears the disagreement regarding the article was much deeper than I thought. Fortunately, I've now proposed yet another compromise on talk that will hopefully be acceptable to everyone, and we can work from there. Everyking 04:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Responding to the original request, yes I think that this article is unecessarily long. There is far too much detail on the chart position and sales that could easily be summarised, we absolutely don't need to know that the album rose from No. 19 to No 16 in its 12th week on the chart for example. (An unrelated issue is that the whole chart position thing is US-centric - what about the rest of the world?). It is also not necessary to list in detail every single TV show that she was on to promote the album, none of these appearance were 'notable'. The Beatles or Elvis Presly's first US TV appearances, or Janet Jackson's breast popping out on TV, that's notable, not that she sat down and brief chat with the show's host. I think that the entire Promotion section should deleted as not necessary, and also, are you going to keep updating this? It will end up 32K in itself, with all the christmas specials and future singles from the LP. I could go on and on, but I hope that sanity and concensus prevails. - Drstuey 05:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I'll keep working on it if they don't drive me away first, and if they'll actually let me edit the article, which at this point I frankly doubt that they will. The notion that a TV appearance watched by millions isn't notable is so preposterous that I have no response to it. Everyking 05:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the daily guest lists from The Late Show with David Letterman and The Big Breakfast. The notion that a TV appearance watched by millions is a priori notable is preposterous --Calton 09:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, another thought, since you, Everyking, are obviously such an enthusiastic wiki-ist why don't you set up an Ashley Simpson fan wiki somewhere where you can make the pages as big as you want and spilt them off as much as you want and include anything you want without people trying to edit you. There are plenty of free wiki hosting sites out there for example Seedwiki You can easily transwiki the content over to there. cheers - Drstuey 05:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't just some fun personal project of mine; it's providing information to the people, and that has to be done through Wikipedia. Although I suppose I should expect you'd want to get rid of me, seems everyone else does at this point. Everyking 05:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * it's providing information to the people, and that has to be done through Wikipedia. Well, no, it doesn't. --Calton 09:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I want to thank Calton for being willing to contribute his thoughts. For my part, I think the lists he describes above would be an excellent resource, and I have a history of opposing the existence of trivial lists. Everyking 10:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to thank Everyking for his willingness to embrace any position, however absurd, that allows him to justify his particular obsession. Or is it merely lip-service? Tell you what, Everyking, why don't you get started on those lists right now? I'll help here:
 * List of Guests on The Late Show with David Letterman
 * List of Guests on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno
 * List of Guests on The Big Breakfast
 * List of Guests on The Today Show
 * List of Guests on Good Morning America
 * List of Guests on BBC Breakfast
 * List of Guests on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
 * List of Guests on QVC
 * Just click, and fill in the rest. Easy to do, if you have satellite/cable TV, no? --Calton 08:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you guys grow up a bit and stop being so insincere? Just try to improve the article as you can and let the rest go.  You'll both be happier people and it won't waste so much time for the rest of us. - Taxman 15:24, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think if it means so much to Calton, he should do it himself. Anyway, I've made a fair number of revisions, additions and updates to this article, and I invite everyone to look it over and tell me what they think. I want to eventually nominate it again on FAC, maybe in a few weeks, but I want to be sure all objections are dealt with in advance this time. Everyking 19:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean a thing to me, son: you're the one who claimed that appearences on talk shows/chat shows were a priori notable, and claimed that lists of guests were a good thing. So how about it son? Have at it...or were you being less than sincere, that you really don't think it's that notable? The term for this posting is put up or shut up, just in case it escaped your notice. --Calton 08:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be a mockery if this were to become a featured article. Begin with just this point. In the first paragraph, the album is described as debuting at number one in sales. Debuting where? Which chart? Later, the article describes Simpson's music as being compared with Pink's or Avril Lavigne's. But the sources cited do not say this at all. They say she aims at the same fans with the same (cynical) strategy. I would fix these points if there were any prospect of the fan who wrote them allowing any other editor to make changes to his article. Oh, and if I felt that it wasn't a steaming heap of rubbish to start with. Dr Zen 00:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is said later that it's the Billboard 200 chart, but I don't think it's necessary to say that in the intro. It already says the country. The NYT quote about comparing it to Avril and Pink essentially does say that, but I would indeed like to expand that a bit with another source or two. And haven't you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Zen? What is it going to accomplish to call the article rubbish and a mockery? That just makes it more difficult for us to continue civilized discussion. Everyking 03:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why Peer Review Is a Good Idea Here, Example 1:
From the Talk page, Everyking explains what he considers important, valuable encyclopedic information:

---Begin quote---

Which seems more informative? Compare another of Zen's paragraphs:


 * "In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 on the Jam Music charts in late July, and peaked at 11."

With mine:


 * "In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 in late July, rising to number 36 in its second week and then to number 30 in its third week.  In its fourth week, it rose greatly, to number 11 (its peak),  but fell to number 14 in its fifth week,  where it remained in its sixth week.  In its seventh week, it fell slightly to number 15,  and then slightly more in the next two weeks: first to number 16 (week eight) , and then to number 17 (week nine).  It remained at number 17 in its tenth week,  before falling to number 24 in its 11th week  and then to number 29 in its 12th week.  It rose again in its 13th week, however, to number 23,  and rose further still in its 14th week, to number 20.  It then fell to number 30 in its 15th week , to number 33 in its 16th week , to number 41 in its 17th week,  and to number 46 in its 18th week.  In week 19 it fell slightly more to number 47, before rising to number 38 in week 20. "

---End quote---

Every tiny factoid is precious, every tiny factoid is valuable, no matter what: it's like the Special Olympics of encyclopedia articles. --Calton 08:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what disagreements you may have with them, please treat others with respect; "others" include both fellow Wikipedia editors and athletes with disabilities. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, get over yourself. --Calton 12:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why Peer Review Is a Good Idea Here, Example 2:
Some statistics:

As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, there have been 554 edits (counting the original creation of the article), inflating the article to 38K in size. The article was created on 26 Jul 2004, 140 days ago, giving an average of just under 4 edits per day, though that was not spread out evenly:


 * July: 3
 * August: 16
 * September: 13
 * October: 40
 * November: 356
 * December: 125

Of the 554 edits, 496 (or 89.5%) have been by Everyking.

Thirty-two users performed the remaining 58 edits -- although since two of each were the leveling and then lifting of protection, I'll discount those, making 30 users performing 56 edits. Reene had the highest single number at 13 edits.

Of those 56 other edits, 29 were reverted by Everyking (25 completely and 4 partially) -- over half of non-Everyking edits. This includes the removal of at least 4 tags (peerreview and clean-up), and involved at least four violations of the 3-revert rule (including an astonishing 8 reversions in 2 hours on 26 November).

These are the numbers as best as I could reconstruct them: I leave out the details concerning bad faith, insults, refusals to engage in discussons, professions of injured innocence, and lack of perspective regarding the notability -- or non-notability -- of this article and the details Everyking choses to insert. I assert that Everyking needs to step back and let go, because his behavior regarding this article and anything connected demonstrates his complete lack of perspective on this issue and on the general purpose of Wikipedia. --Calton 12:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)