Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tara Lipinski/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2023 [1].

Tara Lipinski edit

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about figure skating gold medalist and commentator Tara Lipinski. Its first FAC back in September, which lasted 71 days, didn’t pass, despite having four supports and even though I had addressed every concern brought up by the reviewers. For example, there was an issue surrounding close paraphrasing, but it was sufficiently addressed; Earwig has the similarities in its current version at a little over 25% with all violations unlikely. There was some controversy about its sources; for example, I used Golden Skate, which has been deemed as an acceptable source by both the Figure Skating WikiProject (see WP:FS STYLE) and the figure skating community. That wasn't good enough for the original reviewers, even though I used the same argument to defend its use (almost word-for-word) as the nominators of the FAC for “Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons", which occurred concurrently and also used Golden Skate. The reviewers for the Hanyu FAC accepted their defense of Golden Skate, but not the reviewers at Lipinski's FAC, which was never adequately explained. Many other sources at the Hanyu FAC, which passed with five supports and only lasted 38 days, some of which were in Japanese, were accepted AGF, whereas very few of the sources for Lipinski's bio were not. (There were other things that occurred at Lipinski's previous FAC, but they aren't relevant for this FAC.)

I believe that the current version of this article is FAC-worthy and because I value Wikipedia's peer review system, I'm resubmitting it for FAC. I also believe that it was subjected to a higher level of scrutiny, so it more than adequately fulfills the FA criteria. Consequently, I'm not going to address any comments made in its first FAC here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last FAC's source spotcheck ended with my request that one of the article's stewards fully verify its text–source integrity before a reviewer is asked to do the same, as there were documented errors in every round of spotchecks. To clarify your last sentence, are you saying you refuse to do this prerequisite of FAC? czar 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes @Czar, I understand this, but all the spotchecks that were done were addressed and the administrator asked for more or at least that reviewers state that the issue was resolved, which IMO was unnecessary, but no reviewers stepped up to do it. There's only so many ways to state something like, "Lipinski did three triples in her free skating program" or "She earned four 6.0s in her short program." What I'm saying is that for this FAC, spotchecks are unnecessary because enough were done in the last one. If anyone finds any more errors, I will of course address them, but if the same issues about text-source integrity is brought up here, no I won't address them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: Golden Skate, a third opinion weighed in upon request that "A forum post is not high-quality RS period." I specifically answered the question about why the Yuzuru Hanyu review included it (i.e., its reviewer also questioned the source) and noted that you authored the WP:FS STYLE you've cited as precedent. It is not an accurate summary that this was not "adequately explained". If anything, the last FAC had the broadest consensus on Golden Skate to date, that it lacks hallmarks of reliability. czar 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one "forum post" (ref74) and it supports the content in Lipinski's programs. As I explained before, it's there because it's the only source that contains the information needed for comprehensiveness. The other Golden Skate references are not forum posts. I co-authored the style sheet and as I also explained before, there was consensus in WikiProject Figure Skating about the use of GS as a source in figure skating bios and articles. This bio's FAC deemed GS unreliable, but Hanyu's FAC accepted it. This question was never adequately explained: Why is it that the reviewer's questioning of GS as a reliable source didn't prevent the Hanyu article's promotion to to FA, but it prevented it here? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Figureskatingfan: The key with Golden Skate as a source is to distinguish between its three types of sources:
    • News department: articles published here, especially by known skating journalists, should count as reliable. This is the case with both sources cited in Hanyu's Olympic seasons article. Wei Xiong is a FS author who also works for various magazines and news agencies.
    • Statistics department: lists published here should count as reliable as well. This archived list of show programs should be fine for citation.
    • Fan forum: articles or information published in this space do NOT count as reliable in general. This profile of Tara Lipinski was posted by an anonymous user named "Mathman" with no confirmed background as a sports writer, book author, journalist etc. Hence, this citation should be replaced by a reliable secondary source. If none is available, then the information should be checked for its notability. If it's judged as encyclopedically essential, I would temporarily mark the info with the comment <!--Add reliable secondary source as soon as one is available-->. I think, this is the best solution for this issue. Henni147 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Henni147, I think that what you're saying about how we should evaluate GS for reliability is appropriate; however, while the source in your third point (ref74) is a forum post, it contains information about Lipinski's programs and it's the only source I was able to find with the information. I did as you suggest: checked it for its notability. I believe that in this case, at least for the lists of programs, it's reliable. Notice that I didn't use the information from the post about Lipinski's competition standings or anything biographical. All the other GS sources I've used fit the first two items in your list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Figureskatingfan: Yes, I think this the best solution for now. It would be odd to remove the program table entirely. I will ask my fellow author from Italy if she has access to Lipinski's biography books. Her programs might be mentioned there; then we don't have to rely on the forum post. Henni147 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Lipinski's first memoir, which I chose not to include as a source because it's a YA book written while she was still a teenager, probably by a ghost writer. There was nothing about her programs that wasn't supported by more reliable sources. Her other bios, mostly written at about the same time, are also YAs and very fluffy. I believe that GS is the best source for Lipinski's programs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, this is not much more reliable than what we currently have. This is indeed a big issue, not just with Lipinski's but many other skaters' program tables. We really need to find a global solution for this problem that satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines. It would be sad if we had to remove the majority of program tables from 2000 and earlier for lack of sources. Henni147 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Supported last time and still reckon the article meets the Featured Article criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

Only three images.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

Update: Went through all cited sources today and added missing archive-links. Apart from that one forum post, all used citations satisfy the criteria of a reliable secondary source. I will check the prose content tomorrow. Henni147 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Henni147. Does that count as a source review pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: If the source review only includes the reference section itself and the formatting of inline citations, then yes.
  • All sources are archived now, url-addresses are checked for live-status and access.
  • All information re author/agency, work/publisher + location, language, and issn (if available) are added.
  • Linking of publishers and locations is in accordance with MOS.
  • Inline citations use consistent formatting across the article now (ref-template for online sources, sfn-template for multipage-PDF and print sources); the full source is included at its first use between the prose text markup.
I haven't checked the connection between prose and source (accuracy, paraphrasing etc.), but that's been done in the last FAC review already, so that should be fine too. Unfortunately, I don't have that much time today, so the full prose review needs to wait a bit. Henni147 (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147, I appreciate your thoroughness, but very little of the prose has changed since your prose review in the first FAC, and I addressed all your comments there. Doing another one may not be a very good use of your time, I'm just sayin'. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Henni147 edit

@Figureskatingfan: I finally found the time to do a detailed proofread of the full prose text and check the linking. Here are the key notes:

  • The text is well-written and of professional standard. It consistently uses American English. The issue of close paraphrasing should be resolved as well.
    • Note: In the first FAC nomination round, I was a bit concerned about the amount of direct quotes and cited journalists, but in its current form, the article should be fine. There was no technical panel at that time that called incorrect edges, nor did we have AI tools to measure the height and distance of jumps or quality assessment with GOE and PCS, so we need to rely on the reports and opinions of commentators and sports writers. There is no other option.
We're also talking about a whole different scoring system; as you know, the 6.0 system was in use during Lipinski's career. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is comprehensive, not neglecting any important facts but not going unnecessarily into detail either.
  • It is neutral in POV and stable (not subject to edit wars).
  • The lead properly summarizes the content, and the article structure is fine, too.
  • Notes about my corrections:
    • The term "free skating" usually refers to the full competition segment while "free skate program" to the performance or program of one skater. "Free skate" can be used for both, the segment and a single performance within that segment.
    • Articles about figure skating seasons use the formatting 1997–98, not 1997–1998. We should stick to the former in the prose part as well.
    • If we refer to a specific figure skating event at the Winter Olympics, we should link to [[Figure skating at the XXXX Winter Olympics|...]]. For recent Olympics, there are also separate articles for each event (men's singles, pairs etc.). We should link to those whenever appropriate.
    • I tried my best to reduce the repetition of words a bit. I hope, the changes are fine.

Small issue to be resolved: In the 1998 Winter Olympics section, there is a repetition of info in two sentences:

  • "Her free skate, featuring her signature triple loop-triple loop combination and seven triple jumps total, was technically the most difficult program in Olympic history up to then."
  • "Like Kwan, she completed seven triple jumps, but "the difference was her trademark triple loop-triple loop combination and a wonderful closing triple toe-half loop-triple Salchow [combination]".

I think, with a little flip of the sentences, it should be possible to rephrase the paragraph in a way that the seven triples and her signature combo are only mentioned once. But this is only a small thing and should be possible to fix easily. To sum it up, I am happy to give my support now. Well done! Henni147 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking regarding the above. The second instance you bring up above is a direct quote. Yes, it's a little repetitive, but not overly so. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: If you feel that the repetition is within the limits, then I don't mind either. PS: I want to congratulate you to this article. It has become a really well-researched and valuable source for figure skating. Thank you very much for your effort, and I'm happy to support it for FAC. Henni147 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, it's my intention to address Henni's comments by tomorrow. I was out of town last week, so thanks for your patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause edit

Nice to see this come up for a second run. I've only collected a few new comments to add below which should be straightforward.

(1) The Lipinsky film Meddling is now of Rotten Tomatoes with some interesting review comments added. Also here is an interview with Lipinsky about the release of Meddling here: [2]. The article should state if Lipinsky formed her own view on if it was poorly handled at the Olympics or if it was just standard bureaucratic dalliance by the Olympic committees.

(2) Lipinsky and Weir were both very outspoken about Valieva as someone who had broken all the rules at the Olympics and that she should have been barred from further competition in 2 separate long interviews they did together on NBC after their quiet commentary. Both are available on Youtube, and I'll provide both links if needed (they usually come up on simple keyword searches of Youtube). A quote or two from Lipinski would be useful to see in this article.

(3) It looks like you are already getting support on this and let me know if you can't get the Youtube articles readily. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause:, I looked at Rotten Tomatoes and I didn't see any comments or reviews for Meddling. Perhaps it's because I'm unfamilar with RT, so would you mind directing me to them? It's my understanding that YouTube videos and televised interviews aren't reliable enough, so I didn't go out of my way to look at any of those sources. Are you saying that I should use it anyway? If so, I'm fine with that, if the interview in question turns out to be useful.
Ernest, you brought up the same issue regarding Valieva in this article's first FAC, so please refer back to it. I still don't think that it belongs here. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the direct link to msnbc coverage of the Olympics with the full interview of Tara about the Kamila doping issue; you can watch and decide on its use here: [3]. I'm also reinstating my support from the last recent FAC transferred to this re-opened FAC. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tara_Lipinski/archive2&oldid=1137694377"