Talk:William Bedle/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Bedle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This article is clearly not "Broad in its coverage". We are not shown why Bedle was thought to be a decent cricketer. We don't even know basic information such as if he was a bowler or a batter, or if he was left or right handed. Much more information and detail required. Consider looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale which indicates for Start class that an article: "Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more." - that is the case here. If no more information can be found on the topic, this may be a case where the article will never develop beyond Start class. SilkTork *^YES! 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The prose is clear and contains no mistakes. The lead section doesn't cover Bedle's playing career or who he played for - material contained in the body of the article. Needs development.

Not all sources are reliable. One source is from the main contributor's own website - an admirable website. However, speculation in the article that "Bedle probably played in the first known inter-county match between Kent and Surrey on Dartford Brent in the 1709 season" is sourced to the author's similar speculation on the website. This is counted as original research.

It is neutral and stable.

It contains an appropriate, tagged image.

After looking over the main points again, and paying attention to the view that the article may be considered to be broad enough as there is no more information to be found on Bedle, my conclusion remains that the article fails GA, and that the article contains of itself very little hard information about Bedle. I have placed some tags on the article as there is a bit of speculation and original research. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I think this has been rejected far too easily. The nomination itself made clear that the article is short because all the known data about Bedle, which essentially comes from two sources, is included in the article. As a short article, it cannot be "broad" in coverage. I would point out that GAR was designed for short articles and that this principle has recently been restated on GAR talk pages.

The review has ignored the footnote attached to GAC#3a which reads: This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics. The article has been failed because it is short and that is an invalid reason.

To address the points made in the review.

"We are not shown why Bedle was thought to be a decent cricketer." The article clearly states the view expressed in the main source that he was "accounted the most expert cricket player in England" and there are other references stating that his team Dartford was reckoned the best at the time and he was "the first great player in cricketing annals". We cannot go into a discussion about the whys and wherefores of this because we would breach WP:OR.

"We don't even know basic information such as if he was a bowler or a batter, or if he was left or right handed." This doesn't really matter. It is precisely because of the lack of surviving data that it is a short article and the GA process is meant to cater for short articles. The sources have established his WP:N by stating that he was the best player of his generation and the article has provided as much ancillary information as possible to support the sources: e.g., by naming the known matches that Bedle probably did play in.

In my opinion, either the reviewer does not understand that short articles are eligible for GAR; or else GAR is superfluous as a mere dress rehearsal for FAR.

We need to decide if GAR is meaningful in its own right and if it does welcome articles that are short by necessity. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to detailed review

Thanks very much for considering all the criteria as this is much more useful. The point of nominating this article was that WP:CRIC has a host of short articles on account of limited surviving data and I wanted to test the GAR process to see how it would cope. I expected that the article would be viewed as "not long enough" because of the lost data and I was right. This is inconsistent with the stated purpose of GAR to welcome short articles. In my view, the "broad in coverage" criterion needs to be rewritten as it is unfit for purpose.

To improve the article, I've acted upon the useful points raised and have managed to expand it a little bit. I should not have quoted my own site and have instead quoted from Professor Underdown's book which says much the same things. I found your comments about the lead especially constructive and have made some changes there. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Bedle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Conclusion: Fail

The bulk of this article is about cricket in England and the Dartford Club—an attempt to inductively elucidate the life and notability of Bedle. It may be frustrating that not much info about Bedle has survived, but that's no justification to pass this to GA. Plenty of articles don't attain GA status, not because info can't be found, but just because no independent sources can be found. Parenthetically, obituaries are historically overly gracious and quite subjective, so your claim that Bedle was "the most expert cricket player in England" is very suspect, and the fact that so little information about him can be located brings his notability into question.

You may feel this is another review that failed the article too easily, but when reviewers (especially two experienced reviewers) fail an article quickly, it's usually because something is fundamentally wrong with the article that prevents it from attaining GA status. I hope this is reasonable. --Eustress (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not reasonable at all. May I ask some questions?

• Why have you changed "inter-county" to "international"?

• Sorry, thought it said "inter-country" -- reviewers aren't perfect, so don't get all worked up about it, just change it back. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why can't you spell "athletic" and why use this word instead of "cricket"?

• Your first questions (why I can't spell) is a personal attack; regarding your second question, I believe cricket is a sport, an athletic event. If you want to argue that, fine, but that's not why you failed GAN. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• What does "the which result" mean?

• I don't recall, but it looks like you already took it out, so why ask? --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why have you requested a citation in the lead when this will duplicate one that is correctly given in the main body of the article?

• Per WP:LEADCITE, citations may be duplicated in the lead if the text is controversial. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why are you asking for a citation about the five matches when these are outlined with citations in the very next paragraph?

• This is personal preference (moving on to a new paragraph), but nothing to cry about. Just change it back. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you say that it is "my claim" that Bedle was "the most expert cricket player in England"?

• I already explained this when referring to the nature of obituaries. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why is your review based upon your opinion that the cited sources are "suspect" when in fact they are reputable and impeccable?

• This is a loaded question, so doesn't merit a response. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you use obscure words like "inductively" and "parenthetically" which do not "elucidate" anything?

• WP:PA again --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why should the article not discuss cricket as it was played in Bedle's time and why should it ignore the club he played for?

• It's not that it shouldn't but it's that it is the focus of the article since hardly anything about Bedle can be found. Does not meet GA criterion #3. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you say that "obituaries are historically overly gracious and quite subjective" when in fact they are verifiable sources that are no more "gracious" or subjective than autobiographies? What exactly is "suspect" about the cited statement that Bedle was "the most expert cricket player in England", bearing in mind that the original source is a contemporary newspaper?

• I might be persuaded to agree with you on this point, but such a sensational claim should probably be supported by more than one source. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why would the survival of more information justify passing the article to GA?

• It wouldn't, nor would the fact that it has not survived. My point in stating that was to address your response to the first review: "The point of nominating this article was that WP:CRIC has a host of short articles on account of limited surviving data and I wanted to test the GAR process to see how it would cope." So are you doing this GAN as some kind of psychological experiment? --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you say that "no independent sources can be found" when the article cites no less than six? (Seven, now, as I have just added another).

• I wasn't referring to this article, just drawing an analogy. Reread what I wrote. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you consider yourself to be an "experienced reviewer"?

• Obviously you disagree. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The main purpose of having an article reviewed is to not to bag some prize but to seek improvement. If the article ends up getting a status award then all well and good. Your review fails pitifully to help me improve the article and the silly errors you wantonly introduced, especially changing inter-county to international, actually made the article worse. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm appalled at such a brazen, non-good-faith-assuming response from a senior editor. I'm sorry if I made minor errors in my altruistic edits (reviewers aren't perfect); however, I still feel that my review (and that of the first reviewer) were on the spot. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I, as both a senior editor and (in the real world) a professional reviewer of technical material, am appalled that anyone can set themselves up as a reviewer on WP. There are many reasons why the site has a bad reputation in some quarters and cannot retain membership; certainly I know at least one ex-member who has commented that the review processes are a joke.

You have made no attempt to understand the scope or scale of the article and these must be your primary tasks as a reviewer. The scale is determined by the available data and the scope by what is relevant. You have come on board with pre-conceived ideas, particularly the point about obituaries. In your answer to my question about the obituaries issue, you have indicated that you have not looked at the list of reputable secondary sources which all agree with the primary source and have expanded the topic by reference to their analysis of the wider picture, which is what the article also attempts to achieve. Instead, you have dismissed the primary source as "sensationalist" and have ignored the secondary sources. I wonder what knowledge you have of the subject that enables you to adopt such a position?

I'm very interested in your response to one question that it is "loaded". Why not answer the question? Why are the sources "suspect"? Who are you to question the sources and use that as the basis of your refusal to perform a proper review (i.e., you have not used the GA criteria) and provide a reasoned rationale that may help to improve the article?

I seriously suggest that you should take time to learn how to perform reviews objectively and forget your pre-conceived ideas. In particular, you need to understand concepts like scope, scale and sourcing. Until you can do that, you are not qualified to perform reviews. In addition, you need to learn how to provide a reasoned rationale in simple, objective terms without using unnecessary verbiage such as "parenthetically" which impresses no one. Above all, you need to understand that your task as reviewer is to help the editor to improve the article; not simply say, "I don't like this because the primary source has made a sensational claim". You need to ask questions: e.g., if you don't understand a term like "inter-county", ask the editor; don't just assume that it is a clumsy mistake and change it regardless. Your worst failing, and the one that has really annoyed me, is your "brazen" and untenable assumption that the sources are unreliable and, having adopted that mindset, you have effectively dismissed the article. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Bedle/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Derek.cashman's comments

The nominator quickly renominated this article at WP:GAN after only a day or two of failing GA review. The proper channel for this is to go to GA reassessment, so that the broader community of more experienced GA reviewers can have a say in whether this article meets the criteria or not. I am therefore removing this article from WP:GAN and listing it at WP:GAR. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This does not comply with WP:GAR guidelines and your action has been reverted, especially as (a) you did not consult either the main editor or the active reviewer; (b) the process you tried to implement has failed completely (e.g., no transclusion to GAR page). In any case, the review was already well-advanced and must be allowed to stand. However, given that the reviewer has a couple of concerns around GAC3a (not unexpected) and a minor question arising from GAC1b, I will personally see to it that the article goes to GAR as soon as the reviewer declares that he has completed this review. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary

On balance, I've decided to fail the article on a technicality because I do not have enough experience as an editor to say if it should pass criterion 3(a). I think it deserves to pass but I have noted an offer by the main editor to go to GAR over this question and I think that would be the best course of action.

I would be most interested to read what others might say about point 3(a) and ideally I'd like a non-English reviewer to confirm that the terminology is okay for point 1(b). Otherwise, the article meets the grade. It is very important to remember that is bound to be a short article and it is to the editor's credit that he has been able to do so much with so little, really. Having seen what the editor has written on the GA talk page, he is obviously using this minimalist item to "test" the GA process because the cricket project has a store of other short articles that they want to promote and this one is their "pioneer". It is certainly a very interesting test for the GA process in terms of its stated aim to welcome short articles. --KenKt (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final comment

The object of this exercise was always to get a thorough review done against some agreed criteria with the sole aim of improving the article and establishing a formula for developing similarly short articles. The surviving data about the subject in primary sources amounts to no more than a couple of sentences but it is clear that he was the best player around in his day and was remembered long after he finished playing. As such, he is more deserving of a decent article than 99% of other cricketers who have got 30k-plus written about them. Now that it has had its thorough review and been suitably improved, I'm not doing anything else with it. I'm certainly not putting it through the so-called reassessment procedure.

It did not surprise me in the least that the review process failed to do justice to a short article because there is a mindset on this site that an article can only be good if it is a long article. Then there are the inevitable disruptive elements who obstruct progress and waste everybody's time and certainly there was an abundance of that.

I have decided that this review process is itself a waste of time. It is no better than the inane CfD process. Whenever you enter any process on this site that involves administrative procedures you end up playing politics and getting stressed about it all. And that's before you even think about the ubiquitous IP addresses and their infantile drivel.

Frankly, enough is enough. Especially as I have much better things to do. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Review summary: marginal Fail

Well, I don't know if I'm coming or going here and I think the least that the administrator could do is provide a proper explanation for his action. I have left him a message and he has not responded. What he has done is inconsistent with a scenario described on the WP:GAR page.

It would seem that everything I wrote on this page when it was a review will be stored in the log records so it can easily be recovered. For now, though, I am deleting it all and will address this matter from a different angle.

I started a third review in the genuine belief that I was in order to do so. I studied the article, I studied the two previous reviews and I began to form my own views. First of all, I looked at the five quickcheck pointers and was satisfied that the article passed all of these without problem. This includes point 1 which is about the reliability of quoted sources and I wish to stress, in the light of the second review, that the sources are all reliable and reputable.

I then made comments on the two earlier reviews and concluded that the first was fair enough, especially as it was done against the GA criteria. That reviewer failed the article because he believes there is insufficient available information and this brought the meaning of GAC3 into question because I believe, as does the main editor, that this must be about ample coverage rather than broad coverage. If coverage must be "broad" then short articles are subjected to a handicap from the outset and yet, in real terms, a short article may be much broader in its coverage than a long one.

The second review was not completed properly as the GA criteria were not utilised and the reviewer based his verdict upon an unfounded opinion about the sources to the effect that he considered them "suspect". There are no grounds whatsoever for this view which does not assume good faith re the citation of those sources. As that review was effectively aborted, I personally can see no reason why the editor should not renominate per the GAR page mentioned above. He did renominate and I picked up the baton. I was well into the review and had left some interim suggestions for the editor while I researched the site review processes in more detail. At this point, the administrator intervened and now it is not a nomination but a reassessment. And I would still like to see a rationale for that.

Meanwhile, I see that the editor has taken on board my suggestion that he make more use of the Rowland Bowen book and I believe this has improved the article somewhat. I see he has added something about batting and bowling techniques in Bedle's time which is useful too.

In my view, the article should be rated against the good article criteria as follows:

1. Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

The prose is written to a high standard and there are no spelling or grammar mistakes.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

As a new member, I have not yet had time to familiarise myself with the manual of style but I trust it is a matter of common sense. There is a lead section which is concise and I believe it adequately summarises the body of the article. The layout is acceptable and headings have been introduced. I am English and familiar with cricket so the terminology presents no problems for me but an American, for example, might question some terms; so it's possible that a few minor changes might be necessary there. There are no objectionable words, it is not fiction and there are no listing problems.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout

All points made are cited to a reliable and reputable source. There is a very well presented reference section including footnotes, cited works and external links. Just one tiny suggestion here: I notice a lot of articles incorporate a further reading list of works that do not add directly to the subject but provide useful background or cover the big picture; I wonder if such a list might help if the editor can think of suitable entries?

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons

As for (a) above. It is very thoroughly referenced. There are several quotations and some have two references while all have at least one. The article is very strong in this respect.

(c) it contains no original research

There was a minor problem here when GA/1 was done, owing to an inappropriate reference, but it has been sorted out and there is no original research now.

3. Broad (i.e., ample) in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

This is the difficult one in terms of article length because there are few main aspects given the shortage of surviving data about both the man and the sport during his career. I'm not sure myself but there may be enough here to qualify especially as a good rationale has been given about why Bedle was so highly rated, particularly the point that he remained famous for forty years after he stopped playing. It is good that we read how the game was played then and what the Dartford club achieved while Bedle played for it. There is a fine line between providing just enough detail without unnecessary padding and I think the editor is very close to that line, assuming he is right about the surviving data and that there is no more that could be utilised. But, on balance, I think I would like to see this point discussed by editors more experienced than myself and so this is a very marginal

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

In this respect it does very well because the ancillary material about batting and bowling in one paragraph is relevant to Bedle and similarly the Dartford/Kent match information in the next paragraph. These paragraphs nicely round out the subject and give us a glimpse of the wider picture that is most useful.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias

No problems.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

No problems.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

The image is a photograph taken by a site member and granted to Wikipedia under the GFDL so there is no problem.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The one image used is appropriate and so is its caption. It is relevant to the batting paragraph and sits immediately beside it, which is good. The information box is a useful addition to the article too.

Summary

On balance, I've decided to fail the article on a technicality because I do not have enough experience as an editor to say if it should pass criterion 3(a). I think it deserves to pass but I have noted an offer by the main editor to go to GAR over this question and I think that would be the best course of action.

I would be most interested to read what others might say about point 3(a) and ideally I'd like a non-English reviewer to confirm that the terminology is okay for point 1(b). Otherwise, the article meets the grade. It is very important to remember that is bound to be a short article and it is to the editor's credit that he has been able to do so much with so little, really. Having seen what the editor has written on the GA talk page, he is obviously using this minimalist item to "test" the GA process because the cricket project has a store of other short articles that they want to promote and this one is their "pioneer". It is certainly a very interesting test for the GA process in terms of its stated aim to welcome short articles. --KenKt (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final comment

The object of this exercise was always to get a thorough review done against some agreed criteria with the sole aim of improving the article and establishing a formula for developing similarly short articles. The surviving data about the subject in primary sources amounts to no more than a couple of sentences but it is clear that he was the best player around in his day and was remembered long after he finished playing. As such, he is more deserving of a decent article than 99% of other cricketers who have got 30k-plus written about them. Now that it has had its thorough review and been suitably improved, I'm not doing anything else with it. I'm certainly not putting it through the so-called reassessment procedure.

It did not surprise me in the least that the review process failed to do justice to a short article because there is a mindset on this site that an article can only be good if it is a long article. Then there are the inevitable disruptive elements who obstruct progress and waste everybody's time and certainly there was an abundance of that.

I have decided that this review process is itself a waste of time. It is no better than the inane CfD process. Whenever you enter any process on this site that involves administrative procedures you end up playing politics and getting stressed about it all. And that's before you even think about the ubiquitous IP addresses and their infantile drivel.

Frankly, enough is enough. Especially as I have much better things to do. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)