Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/1

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.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill edit

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

Result: Overwhelming suppose of keeping the article with no objections apart from the requester, so result is kept per WP:SNOW. To the requester's final comment, that page says process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy. — LostOldPassword (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails in comprehensiveness, as it does not mention at all the fact that the PlayMakers Repertory Company, one of North Carolina's leading theatres is located on the campus and the fact that the school has a very well regarded acting program for both undergraduates and graduate students. The GA reviewers have stated that it is "consensus" to not include this information, perhaps because some other universities do not mention their theatre programs, but this is rubbish; it is a big violation of comprehensiveness, which is a criteria for GA and FA. Unless this is added, it should be delisted from GA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a sensitive subject for you. You also seem to be very familiar with the subject at hand. It would be very helpful if you would take the initiative to include this subject and source such statements as the school having "a very well regarded acting program for both undergraduates and graduate students," since this subject appears to be of the utmost importance to you. Rather than spending the time to complain in various sections about the lack of this information, perhaps your time would be better spent improving this article rather than trying to devalue it. Certainly every good article strives to include comprehensive information, but there is simply no way that the majority of good articles include every single bit of pertinent information. Also, the parameters of what is pertinent are subjective. I don't mean to be rude, but I cannot understand why you're so adamant about this issue, yet haven't taken the opportunity to improve the article in regards to your point of contention. Fletch81 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had reviewed the article, and I felt the need to promote the article based upon the criteria of inclusion. I personally feel that you de-listing the article based on the fact that the article does not have the acting company that you mentioned is disruption to prove a point. Since you have an apparent conflict of interest with your theater company, and using this GA review to advertise your production company is a big no-no. While reviewing, I did not take into consideration to fail the article because it did not have the "PlayMakers Repertory Company". The article didn't have collegiate political parties mentioned either, such as the College Republicans and Young Democrats? So, should I fail it based on that premise? No. Consensus has stated on the talk page that this not be an issue in judging the GA, but you are welcome to add the drama/theater to the article. But, de-listing UNC-CH, because it does not advertise a theater company is becoming disruptive, in my opinion. Also I don't appreciate this compromise either, which is dreadfully close in pushing POV. It is a waste of my time and other users' time. miranda 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is patently ridiculous and bordering on bad faith. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is pure arrogance to assert this is bad faith. It is an award winning regional theater company, which but no means is on every university campus, and the lack of inclusion of a notable aspect of the university is a lack of comprehensiveness. The fact that you are so defensive about it indicates how correct I am that it is a gap. And perhaps I would spend more time improving the article if there was some indication you heard me when I identified it on the talk page as a gap, but you prefer to ignore the issue, so here it is. Comprehensiveness is not negotiable, and it should be discussed; if GA reviewers no longer care about comprehensiveness but would rather attack me, enjoy, but you could just add something and be done with this, but do what you like.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether the theatre in question is notable or not, the article is still GA. No article can be 100% comprehensive to everyone's taste or opinion, only to a reasonable consensus. I live in Chapel Hill and haven't heard of this acting program, and if it's that important I'm sure the requester of the re-assessment can add a sentence or two very quickly. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just looked to find out about this company, and the PlayMakers Repertory Company article has no references. It sounds like you know a lot about this subject so it would surely be more help and better use of time to clean that up than argue a point, whether valid or not. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted here and on the article's talk page, a proper review was conducted of the article. In fact, it's one of the more detailed reviews for a GA I've seen written up. The issues were noted as corrected and the article was promoted. The information the requester seeks to include might be better off in a Academics of the University of North Carolina at Chapel HIll or some such other article that details the academic programs of the university. Otherwise if this program is so well regarded and so notable a single sentence with an appropriate citation after the sentence: "Nationally, UNC is in the top ten public universities for research.[46]" might be all that is needed. Otherwise I agree that the requester is on the verge of disrupting to make a point and may be acting in bad faith. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps that is all that is needed, but as I said, something should be added, be it a sentence or a few. And again, this is not "disruptive", in the same way that FAR is not "disruptive" if articles do not come up to standard. This is also not about the propriety of the review, which was strangely conducted "off site", but that doesn't matter, this is only about comprehensiveness of the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please add the sentence then yourself, since you know the subject, then there would be nothing to argue about. Also, I think this is rather unfair on the original reviewer, who I think did a great job and should be thanked for all the time and effort put into it. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The review wasn't conducted off site. miranda 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Comprehensiveness" is a requirement of Featured Articles, not Good Articles. This article meets the broadness criterion and all the other criteria for GA, and a full review was done by the reviewer. Somno (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, if the information is going to added, then it would be a very minor edit, so exactly why a GA reassessment needs to take place, I have no idea. Secondly, judgesurreal, from the article's edit history (which can be found here), I see you have not made a single edit to the article. So why don't you make your first one and add a (PROPERLY referenced) statement? After all, no one owns the article, and you have every right to edit it was well (within Wikipedia policy). So why not stop talking and start doing? Noble Story (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, funny none of you would prefer to do just that but instead prefer to cry and moan through paragraphs of how unfair it is to be GA reviewed instead of fixing it. Give me a break; either fix it or stop crying over it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the onus on the rest of us? Most of us have never even heard of the company before. You seem to know a lot about it, so what's stopping you? Please, be our guest. Noble Story (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Judgesurreal777 created the article PlayMakers Repertory Company and is the main contributor. Whether assuming good faith or not, this strikes me as a huge conflict of interest. Is that not a reason for a speedy close, so we can all get back to editing? 152.23.51.220 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to have to agree with the original GA review on this one. Failing to mention a very specific theatre company, even if it is 'highly acclaimed', shouldn't preclude an article on the entire university from being comprehensive enough. Now, if it left out a major subject area, like not including anything on 'academics' or 'athletics', that's something else and probably would stand in the way of GA in that case. But reading the article, I think this meets the GA criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if there were a thousand keeps, procedure is for seven days, and you have no authority to close it because you dislike the review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not actually true. Read the top of the page (click show if necessary) and you will find the following:

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 7 days old, unless

at least five editors have expressed an opinion

the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus.

With eight editors expressing an opinion in favor, one against, and some comments, that satisfies both criteria for closing in less than 7 days, and so this reassessment is closed accordingly. See above. LostOldPassword (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.