Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/November 2009
John Brownlee edit
I'm not really sure what to say here. These are three articles that I believe meet all good topic criteria. This is my first foray here, so I hope that anything I've done wrong will be greeted with a WP:MINNOW rather than a WP:TROUT. Steve Smith (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose You have fantastic articles, but the main article should make better use of WP:SUMMARY style. Since the premiership is the most important part of Brownlee's biography (right?), it should have more information about that and the scandal, even if they are more detailed in the subarticles. That shouldn't be too hard, just add a few more paragraphs to the Premier section so that it's enough if that article stood alone. Reywas92Talk 17:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments (and praise). I'm not necessarily opposed to doing what you suggest, but the main article is already at 68295 B of readable prose, putting it well into the "Probably should be divided" category of WP:SIZERULE, so I'm not really enthusiastic about adding more. Of course, I could split out a new article (John Brownlee as Attorney-General?), but then I'm concerned that the main article would be much smaller than it should be. Anyway, I welcome specific suggestions (even if your suggestion that I should just add a few paragraphs stands). Steve Smith (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. It shouldn't be much longer, but I wouldn't want another subarticle either. It's just that the main article gives much more weight to AG over Premier, but it's 5 years AG to 9 years Premier and Premier is the higher office. Also, only about a quarter of visitors to John Edward Brownlee actually go on to read Premiership of John Brownlee [1][2]. Would you consider a Political career of John Brownlee that would cover both and use summary style about both in the main article? Reywas92Talk 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree that the Premiership is more important than the A-Gship, and should be more emphasized; indeed, that was part of my intention in giving it its own article. I don't really like the Political career of John Brownlee idea, just because that's a subject that probably includes more than 80% of what there is to say about John Brownlee; it sort of strikes me as similar to having a World War II article with a World War II post-1939 subarticle. Regarding the lower traffic of the Premier article, I think one possible explanation is that a large number of people reading the main article only read the lead, which tells them what they want to know (I tried to emphasize the Premiership in the main article's lead in proportion to its overall importance to the subject, which is high, rather than in proportion to its importance in the main article, which isn't), and so don't bother delving into any greater detail either in the main article or the sub-article. Anyway, I'm not trying to be disagreeable, as I can see both sides of the issue; I'll probably give it a couple of days and hope some other people chime in here, so that there's some consensus that I can act on. Thanks again for your thoughts. Steve Smith (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. It shouldn't be much longer, but I wouldn't want another subarticle either. It's just that the main article gives much more weight to AG over Premier, but it's 5 years AG to 9 years Premier and Premier is the higher office. Also, only about a quarter of visitors to John Edward Brownlee actually go on to read Premiership of John Brownlee [1][2]. Would you consider a Political career of John Brownlee that would cover both and use summary style about both in the main article? Reywas92Talk 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think this is enough of a problem, certainly not for the topic (as opposed to the article). Imagine if there had been a breakout subarticle on Brownlee's time as attorney general (not inconceivable, and maybe a good idea even, considering just how big the article is). Then the weight of the main article would tip back towards the Premiership and the sex scandal. But nothing more would have been said about them to do this, in fact the article as a whole would be less informative because more information would have been shifted elsewhere. I think things are fine enough as they are - rst20xx (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Regardless of what you think is necessary for good topic status, do you have any thoughts on the ideal approach to dividing information between articles? I think Reywas raises some good points above, and I'd appreciate thoughts from anybody else as to what approach to take. Steve Smith (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SIZE says that articles over 60 KB "Probably should be divided", so my advice would be to actually do as I suggested and create an article on Brownlee's time as attorney general. If you did this, then you could also give a bit more space to the premiership and sex scandal in the main article. But whether you do this or not, I still support - rst20xx (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Regardless of what you think is necessary for good topic status, do you have any thoughts on the ideal approach to dividing information between articles? I think Reywas raises some good points above, and I'd appreciate thoughts from anybody else as to what approach to take. Steve Smith (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw - I've just created John Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta (which isn't much to look at just yet), which I think will allow me to address all concerns. Of course, it's not a Good Article yet, which makes this topic ineligible for Good Topic status. Thanks for your thoughts; they're proving useful. Steve Smith (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)