Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/B. J. Prager/1

B. J. Prager edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Relisted at GAN per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting the GA review at Talk:B. J. Prager/GA1. The review was quickfailed because lack of size and not lack of comprehensiveness. ("There is a section with a single line, and two others with a single paragraph."-quoting directly from the review) This is an article about a professional lacrosse player. The average lacrosse player is very difficult to build a substantial article for because there is sparse secondary source coverage after college. I believe that there is adequate comprehensiveness given the subject matter. The three sparse sections are for background, personal and professional career.

In general, as I noted on the reviewers page at User_talk:Nergaal#B._J._Prager, the reviewer does not appear to be a regular sports bio contributor. In my experience in sports bio GAs, a comprehensive professional career summary includes major records, all-star and award summaries, important playoff performances, notable statistical accomplishments, significant injuries affecting performance, notable transactions and extraordinary single-game performances. Unfortunately, I don't think anything is missing from Prager's article. Thus, although the professional section is brief, it is comprehensive.

In terms of personal and background content, we do not have a birthdate, but know his four-year college career ended in 2002. We do not know his place of birth, but know where he grew up and went to high school. For very marginally notable people, this type of issue does not preclude a GA unless we have reason to believe that the information is likely to be found in forthcoming secondary sources (Thomas Wilcher is one of my GAs where this was the case). In Prager's case, we have a professional athlete who does not present this birth information in any of the common places where it might be found along with professional statistics. It is also common when both the personal and background sections are sparse for them to be combined. That would be a good solution in this case. There was no complaint that there is any content in readily available secondary sources that was not included, just that the content was short. However, there is extensive details about the important part of his career (in this rare sport where college career is more important that pro career).

It is my believe that the reviewer's unfamiliarity with sports bios led to the suggestion on my talk page to merge the content into a Notable lacrosse players for Princeton University article. This is would be unprecedented, AFAIK. All professional athletes are considered WP:N and get their own articles. Thus, Prager's article needs to be evaluated as an individual bio. We need to evaluate its comprehensiveness based on knowledge of and expectations of information availability. In this case, Prager passes WP:N easily and we need to determine where the bar is for him in terms of comprehensiveness. Does anyone expect that his missing personal and background information will ever be available in secondary sources?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (without prejudice). I recommend removing the personal life section: his family are not notable, and this is unencyclopedic information. It is also clear from the article that the subject is notable only for his college career. I suggest combining the "Background" and "Professional career" into a potted "Biography", so that the college career stands out separately as the reason for the article. Then the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 00:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard of removing family information as an improvement to an article. In the majority of cases WP:N people have several non-notable family members who are mentioned in their WP bios and information is generally requested on their names and exact relationships as a way to broaden an article. Why is this an exception?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. I could probably name 15 or 20 of my GAs where I was requested to add this type of information if it was available in order to gain approval from a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And so you did, presumably, without regard for the privacy of the individuals you were identifying, just because a reviewer asked for it. See WP:NPF and criterion 3b. Geometry guy 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, NPF says "include only material relevant to their notability" and 3b says "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". In the case of a professional lacrosse player, information that he is from a family of competitive lacrosse players is relevant and on topic and helpful to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, and should give you a way to integrate the material. In particular, the source indicates that he overlapped with his younger brother at Princeton in 2002. Geometry guy 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. so that brings you to nothing omitted and nothing extraneous. If you agree that the article is basically in line with WP:WIAGA then you should be on board to overturn the fail. If that is possible it is far preferable to renoming because I am in the WP:CUP and the WP:GAC queue is about 2 months, which won't get me any points by October 31, whereas overturning the fail before that date will get me CUP points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "overturning the fail" you mean listing the article as GA, well that would require me to review the entire article against all of the GA criteria, as it has not received a proper review. Why should I spend my precious free time on that? So you can get points as part of this disruptive drive for trophies? Sorry, no.
    
    If instead you mean reinserting the article in the nominations list, that is a possible outcome of this GAR if other editors agree. Geometry guy 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By reinserting, do you mean with its submission date priority? If so, yes that would be a good outcome. I guess that would be a determination of an inappropriate quickfail. Yes. that would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I do, and that would be a good outcome. Indeed it is the reasonable outcome if reviewers here concur that the fail was inappropriate. Geometry guy 21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With all due respect, I don't understand why you suggest removing the personal life section. I strongly oppose this :) Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, and you are welcome to express strong feelings here, but do you have an opinion as to the outcome of this reassessment? Geometry guy 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry guy, I thought you now agree that including content that "he is from a family of competitive lacrosse players is relevant and on topic and helpful to the reader"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. What I am seeking is input from other editors on how this GAR should be closed. Geometry guy 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it might get the ball rolling if you said in the normal bold letters that this should be closed as an invalid fail or something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and return to GAN with old timestamp. Completely and unequivocally improper quickfail. Courcelles 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Quickfail was improper; needs a full review. Ucucha 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist as suggested above, at the original timestamp. I am concerned that the article does not meet the broadness requirements of the good article criteria, but then again I'm not very familiar with lacrosse. I agree the reason specified for the quickfail is improper, especially since the short paragraphs were completely referenced. –Grondemar 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist with the original timestamps. It does appear that the article was inappropriately quick-failed. I would recommend that the personal life stuff be integrated into the background section as it does bear relevance to his sporting career. It would be good to expand the professional career section as that is what is important in terms of WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]