Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Iron Maiden/1
Iron Maiden edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Some issues fixed, but violations of 1a) and 3b) remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
At the time of this article's 2011 listing, it had 7000 words of prose. Now it has over 22,000, a clear failing of GA criterion 3b) and WP:PAGESIZE.
The image and legacy section is one of the best (or worst) examples of indiscriminate trivia sections I have ever read, while there have been comments on the talk page about incorrect grammar and spelling. This article doesn't need a trim to remain a GA-it needs a chainsaw! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I raised the question about the Image and Legacy cruft section above, and so far it's been ignored. I've worked through a chunk of the article making grammar and language corrections, but it's hard to keep up with the cruft that is being continually added. Intothatdarkness 18:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- This page should be restored to , January 22, 2023 before all the junk was added. Moxy-
19:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I've been too busy fixing the actual functional part of the article to get into the cruft in a serious way. Adding every single mention of every single musician who ever mentioned Iron Maiden adds nothing to the article at all. I see no good reason why this section should be so much longer than, say, the actual section about Maiden's own music and influences. Intothatdarkness 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Moxy and Intothatdarkness: that version is hardly better—21,000 words, with every person of some notability given an entire paragraph for their quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative process, so we need a solid starting point to work from. I'd actually prefer using what we have now, simply because I've cleaned up earlier parts of the article. It's the one section that has been and remains seriously problematic, although there are issues (mainly a fixation with stages and lighting rigs) in the other parts. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Speaking of collaboration, even though I've already notified RALFFPL on their talk page, I thought it best to do so again, so any undiscussed reversions become a conduct issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative process, so we need a solid starting point to work from. I'd actually prefer using what we have now, simply because I've cleaned up earlier parts of the article. It's the one section that has been and remains seriously problematic, although there are issues (mainly a fixation with stages and lighting rigs) in the other parts. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Moxy and Intothatdarkness: that version is hardly better—21,000 words, with every person of some notability given an entire paragraph for their quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I've been too busy fixing the actual functional part of the article to get into the cruft in a serious way. Adding every single mention of every single musician who ever mentioned Iron Maiden adds nothing to the article at all. I see no good reason why this section should be so much longer than, say, the actual section about Maiden's own music and influences. Intothatdarkness 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- This page should be restored to , January 22, 2023 before all the junk was added. Moxy-
- I've been working through the article in sequence, and had made it to the last album section before the reassessment was launched. During that time users have been continually adding content of uneven quality to the Image and Legacy section (cruft, stuff with grammar and spelling issues, and so on). I'd suggest everyone STOP adding content until we determine a way forward here. For my part, I think most of the Image and Legacy section should either be moved to its own article or deleted. You don't need to list everyone who's ever worn a Maiden T-shirt or listened to one of their songs. Intothatdarkness 20:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- A lot of it is pretty obvious WP:TRIVIA. I think I'll remove the section about celebrities who wore t-shirts if I don't see a policy-backed response in 24 hours or so. ~UN6892 tc 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have begun removing huge amounts of cruft and trivia, in addition to unused references. Just wanted to note that if anyone worries about those comments which say that "these figures have been agreed on the talk page, don't change them" or some such
bullshitnonsense, it turns out that RALFFPL added them in edits like this without any talk page discussion at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) - I'm going to stop making grammar and language corrections until there's a stable version of the article in place. It's annoying to fix stuff in a section and then come back and find it's been removed. That's part of the reason I stayed away from the Image and Legacy section...it's such a dumpster fire I didn't want to waste time on it until something had been decided. Intothatdarkness 16:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've used enough of the chainsaws and hedge trimmers on the article, Intothatdarkness if you want to start fixing/copyediting. I apologise for the language, but fabricating consensus or the words of other editors is one of the worst things you can do on Wikipedia, and were it not for the fact that I think the editor is just about acting in good faith, I would have called in an administrator immediately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'll start back in within the next couple of days, just in case there's another flurry of activity. And to be clear, I don't think the other editor was fabricating consensus as much as they misunderstood the difference between talk page discussion and notes added to reverts. There was a flurry of these maybe a year or so ago, and the majority as I recall related to album sales figures. For some reason that seems to be a hot button thing in this article. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, no flurries have happened Intothatdarkness. Do you want to get back in? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'll start back in within the next couple of days, just in case there's another flurry of activity. And to be clear, I don't think the other editor was fabricating consensus as much as they misunderstood the difference between talk page discussion and notes added to reverts. There was a flurry of these maybe a year or so ago, and the majority as I recall related to album sales figures. For some reason that seems to be a hot button thing in this article. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've used enough of the chainsaws and hedge trimmers on the article, Intothatdarkness if you want to start fixing/copyediting. I apologise for the language, but fabricating consensus or the words of other editors is one of the worst things you can do on Wikipedia, and were it not for the fact that I think the editor is just about acting in good faith, I would have called in an administrator immediately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have begun removing huge amounts of cruft and trivia, in addition to unused references. Just wanted to note that if anyone worries about those comments which say that "these figures have been agreed on the talk page, don't change them" or some such
- A lot of it is pretty obvious WP:TRIVIA. I think I'll remove the section about celebrities who wore t-shirts if I don't see a policy-backed response in 24 hours or so. ~UN6892 tc 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.