Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/1

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) edit

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

Result: GAN nomination restored, disputed review archived. Geometry guy 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piano non troppo reviewed this article with ridiculous claims that it goes into unnecessary detail (without sounding too waxy, many good articles and even featured articles are structured similarly), that it is a "PR piece to promote Lady Gaga" and that the artist should be consulted for advice on how to improve the article (WP:COI, much?). Mainly, the criticisms were that it focused on information such as the music video and performances and that it did not focus solely on composition. I think this user fails to see that there are other aspects other than musical structure that make a song notable. But my main concern with Piano reviewing the article is that s/he appears to have a bias due to being involved in an edit conflict recently.

There was a content dispute over whether the artist's official site should be used in the external links section that this user was involved in, that was eventually resolved with a consensus to exclude it. I think that this user's extreme and, in my opinion, outrageous criticism of this excellent article was merely a tool for this user to have the GAN failed at any cost. Per WP:GAN, "Articles can be [...] reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." As s/he was involved in a recent dispute involving this page, it was therefore inappropriate for him/her to review it. Several editors included myself noted this at the GAN but s/he refused to step down and let another user review it.

Eventually, User:Una Smith failed this article claiming that there was a content dispute. There was no edit warring over the "issues" Piano raised at the article, and the GAN merely seemed like the nominator and other editors trying to discuss their opinions with the reviewer. I saw the GAN as a discussion and not a content dispute, so that does not make the article fail its GAN, in my opinion.

As per the good article criteria, the article definitely meets all of it. User:Legolas2186 is an excellent editor who has contributed to numerous good articles, several featured lists, and one featured article. He has obviously worked hard to bring the "Paparazzi" article to the quality that it is, and for a biased user to review it with suggestions that would ultimately lead to it being a non-neutral stub is not fair after that hard work. I have opened this community reassessment in hopes that this page will be listed as a good article. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article didn't pass the first time around. It also has improved a lot, I remember how it was before Legolas added a bit and cleaned the article up. I think the article is rather broad in coverage and on topic without being a PR piece for Gaga. Candyo32 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chasewc91. The previous nomination was met with such biasness from the said reviewer that it is uncalled and appaling. The article in question is completely satisfies with the GA criterias which I know best considering the numerous articles I worked on. Frankly, I was disappointed with Una Smith's closing but chose not to make more noise out of it and re-nominate the article later. However, since Chase has opened the reassessment, I will be waiting for the GA community to voice their opinion in this matter. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and proposed action. I have reviewed the relevant pages and page histories. There seems to have been a certain amount of overreaction on all sides, but there's no point in rehashing it all. Relevant points seem to me to be the following.
1. Piano non troppo did not sign up to review the article at WP:GAN and did not fail the article, but only contributed review comments; further he withdrew from the reviewing role and also indicated that his contribution was an experiment, an action arguably contrary to WP:POINT.
2. The article was "quick-failed" by Una Smith, here, here and here, citing a "content dispute".
3. Contrary to Una Smith's closing comment, editors may not review articles they have contributed significantly to; however, it is rather hard to argue that 2 edits to remove an external link form a "significant contribution".
4. Also contrary to these comments, I find no evidence of a content dispute or article instability. The disagreement over the external link was resolved at WP:ELN before the review close, and I see no subsequent dispute or instability in the edit history.
5. The article does not meet the GA criteria at present, because the section on "Live performances" goes into unnecessary detail (3b), and the section on "Track listing" lists a large number of versions and remixes without justifying their notability or discussing them in prose (1b, 3b). There are also other minor 1a and 1b issues. These issues could all be fixed by a hold period of cooperative discussion between nominator and reviewer in the best spirit of GA.
I therefore propose that the initial review be archived and that the article is reinserted into the nominations list as if no review had taken place, so that a new reviewer can give this article the proper review it deserves. I will do this if there are no objections. Geometry guy 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with your point that the performance section goes into unnecessary detail (focusing on the major things such as the MTV performance would suffice), but I disagree with your point that the track listings should be removed as non-notable. They do not have to be notable to be included; WP:SONG#Single track listings states: "If this song is a single include track listings for the single's different formats." A new review would probably be a better idea, though. This article could use a few improvements but for it to be quick-failed for an inappropriate reason (discussion over content is not the same as an edit war) is unfair considering the hard work Legolas has put in. It at least deserves to be put on hold. Chase wc ⁹¹ 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the section on "Track listings" should be removed. Indeed the large number of remixes looks like interesting content to me, but it isn't currently discussed in the article. Geometry guy 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add for clarity that WP:SONG is a WikiProject, and not part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to chunk the Live performance section down, along with the tracklistings which are not necessary. However, they cannot be completely removed as some of them are indeed present in teh article and as Chase says, in WP:SONG which is indeed the guideline we have to construct articles on songs. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]