Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1
Steve Cherry 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: The original editor now supports that the GA status be kept, so as such the article remains a GA. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This article relies too heavily on an autobiography and is not in compliance with policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV as a result.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can you point me where in Wikipedia:Reliable sources it states that autobiographies are not considered reliable?--EchetusXe 15:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure WP:RSPRIMARY, points to caution when using primary sources. The issue here is not so much using the source, but the extent to which the article is relying on primary source material. While I understand that this is a Ghost written autobiography through a reputable publisher, these types of publications don't go through the peer review process that a biography would and are not held to the same level of editorial scrutiny that a named biographer would have to go through. Ghost writers are essentially at will employees and have little power over content; not to mention the financial motive of those involved to promote the subject. In other words, it's not really the best source, and its ok to use it somewhat, just not to this level. My suggestion would be to trim back.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Would you mind checking through the article and flagging any lines that you believe the autobiography is not an adequate source to support? I have spent many hours on this now, searching for and adding more sources, and trimming a bit of unnecessary detail. I really can't see anything that would be an obvious thing to trim down. The early life section is down to four lines now. There are 73 citations to the autobiography and 65 citations from other sources. In your opinion, how many autobiography referenced facts should we remove from the article to leave it as a source used only somewhat, as opposed to the level when you started the reassessment process? Thanks. EchetusXe 10:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- One reason I brought this to community reassessment, is I wanted some more input from other experienced editors as to what’s appropriate. I don’t want to be too stringent or too lenient. I think you are making some good progress finding independent sources for some content. I’d like input from Kosack, who is more supportive of using the autobiography, and from Valereee who placed the tags. We need a meeting of the minds, and not just one editor (I.e. me) dictating how to handle this.4meter4 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a case in point, John Wark is currently listed as an FA with around 40 uses of his own autobiography. Cherry currently has 73 by EchetusXe's count above, but also uses a single page reference format rather than ranges as Wark does (for example, refs 7 and 8 could realistically be combined into pp=9-10 as a single ref). If Cherry used that format, I would imagine we would be down to around 55-60 uses. Furthermore, Cherry currently has 138 refs so, even taking the potential to cut the autobiography refs down to that number, this article realistically has more references than a listed FA? There also appears to be nothing particularly sensational or controversial here sourced to the autobiography that falls foul of the primary source guidelines, in fact it's all pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. Kosack (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah that's a good point. I could group book references together more in the future. Thanks.EchetusXe 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- It would be good to go through and group some citations to cut back on the number from the autobiography. I know that’s in some ways a purely cosmetic change, but it does visually balance the citation comparison between primary and secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok I have grouped them together now. Thanks. EchetusXe 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good. I left a note for Valereee to comment here. Valereee Has not edited for a few days, and hopefully we will hear back soon. I’d like to specifically hear about what content may need to be addressed to get the tags off the page that were placed by Valereee. I would like Kosack’s take on that too once we hear back. As soon as that get’s ironed out we can close this off and go back for DYK approval.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @4meter4, I haven't time to go through the article again and tag stuff sourced to the autobiography as better source needed, but my main concern is anything but noncontroversial facts should not be sourced to the autobiography. We can't source things like the saving his family from a fire because he cried, saving a teammate from "swallowing his tongue", that some coach or scout thought XYZ about him, etc. to an autobiography. If that stuff can't be sourced to a non-affiliated source, it's probably not even noteworthy anyway and should just be removed as trivia. And the fact some color announcer said he'd saved someone from "swallowing his tongue" doesn't make it true, either. WP should not be saying swallowing one's tongue is possible just because lots of people believe it's possible. Honestly I think the whole incident just needs to be removed as dubious. It's trivia at best. If we're going to mention it, it needs attribution and probably scare quotes, which I really don't like to see.
- The autobiography is fine for stuff like what high school he graduated from, his parents' names and occupations, his dob, etc., but we shouldn't be sourcing anything to it that we can source to something better. We certainly shouldn't be sourcing a DYK hook to his autobiography; if the hook facts can't be sourced somewhere else, it's not good enough for DYK and IMO not good enough for the article. I am happy to have the tags removed once any extraordinary claim is either removed or is supported by something other than his autobiography. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I removed the little quote about him being overweight and I changed the tongue choking incident from "credited to saving the life" to "came to the aid of".--EchetusXe 11:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, the FA-listed articles such as Iwan Roberts, Bryan Gunn and John Wark all feature quotes from others attributed to their respective autobiographies, Roberts in particular has things way more incendiary sourced to it. I'm not sure why things like that should be an issue here or why this article seems to be held to standards not required of our highest review accolades. I can't speak for the tongue swallowing incident, but if there is a scientific basis for it being impossible then it could be toned down or better explained if possible. Kosack (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- I understand the controversy over the tongue swallowing thing. Here is how it stands now: "On 25 February, he came to the aid of Wimbledon striker John Fashanu after Fashanu was knocked unconscious following a collision with Craig Short.[9] Fashanu said that "I could feel my tongue slipping down my throat as I was lying on the ground... I owe Steve Cherry an awfully big debt".[39]" Please speak up if anyone objects to that.EchetusXe 12:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, the FA-listed articles such as Iwan Roberts, Bryan Gunn and John Wark all feature quotes from others attributed to their respective autobiographies, Roberts in particular has things way more incendiary sourced to it. I'm not sure why things like that should be an issue here or why this article seems to be held to standards not required of our highest review accolades. I can't speak for the tongue swallowing incident, but if there is a scientific basis for it being impossible then it could be toned down or better explained if possible. Kosack (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I removed the little quote about him being overweight and I changed the tongue choking incident from "credited to saving the life" to "came to the aid of".--EchetusXe 11:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good. I left a note for Valereee to comment here. Valereee Has not edited for a few days, and hopefully we will hear back soon. I’d like to specifically hear about what content may need to be addressed to get the tags off the page that were placed by Valereee. I would like Kosack’s take on that too once we hear back. As soon as that get’s ironed out we can close this off and go back for DYK approval.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok I have grouped them together now. Thanks. EchetusXe 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- It would be good to go through and group some citations to cut back on the number from the autobiography. I know that’s in some ways a purely cosmetic change, but it does visually balance the citation comparison between primary and secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah that's a good point. I could group book references together more in the future. Thanks.EchetusXe 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a case in point, John Wark is currently listed as an FA with around 40 uses of his own autobiography. Cherry currently has 73 by EchetusXe's count above, but also uses a single page reference format rather than ranges as Wark does (for example, refs 7 and 8 could realistically be combined into pp=9-10 as a single ref). If Cherry used that format, I would imagine we would be down to around 55-60 uses. Furthermore, Cherry currently has 138 refs so, even taking the potential to cut the autobiography refs down to that number, this article realistically has more references than a listed FA? There also appears to be nothing particularly sensational or controversial here sourced to the autobiography that falls foul of the primary source guidelines, in fact it's all pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. Kosack (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- One reason I brought this to community reassessment, is I wanted some more input from other experienced editors as to what’s appropriate. I don’t want to be too stringent or too lenient. I think you are making some good progress finding independent sources for some content. I’d like input from Kosack, who is more supportive of using the autobiography, and from Valereee who placed the tags. We need a meeting of the minds, and not just one editor (I.e. me) dictating how to handle this.4meter4 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Would you mind checking through the article and flagging any lines that you believe the autobiography is not an adequate source to support? I have spent many hours on this now, searching for and adding more sources, and trimming a bit of unnecessary detail. I really can't see anything that would be an obvious thing to trim down. The early life section is down to four lines now. There are 73 citations to the autobiography and 65 citations from other sources. In your opinion, how many autobiography referenced facts should we remove from the article to leave it as a source used only somewhat, as opposed to the level when you started the reassessment process? Thanks. EchetusXe 10:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure WP:RSPRIMARY, points to caution when using primary sources. The issue here is not so much using the source, but the extent to which the article is relying on primary source material. While I understand that this is a Ghost written autobiography through a reputable publisher, these types of publications don't go through the peer review process that a biography would and are not held to the same level of editorial scrutiny that a named biographer would have to go through. Ghost writers are essentially at will employees and have little power over content; not to mention the financial motive of those involved to promote the subject. In other words, it's not really the best source, and its ok to use it somewhat, just not to this level. My suggestion would be to trim back.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support GA as passing. Personally, I think the article has been improved enough to pass GA at this point. References have been swapped where possible, and Kosack makes a good argument over how we use autobiographical material. Additionally the reference reformating has been good. I am not disturbed by the tongue swallowing content, simply because it's in a peronsonal quote, and isn't an assertion being made by a medical expert or making an authoratitve medical claim. It's essentially a verifiable human interest story, which is fine in a biographical article.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2021 (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.