Talk:Clarence Chesterfield Howerton/GA1

GA Review[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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this article is not ready for Good Article review. A cursory glance reveals the article has several issues:

Article is very brief despite asserting the subject's importance; article is severely lacking in detail.
Lead paragraph is very short and does not summarize even the minor amount of detail the article has.
Career is written in list form, and would be better presented in prose.
Film career says he had "several" roles and describes only two.
Death comprises of only one sentence when surely this could be longer (or merged into another section if necessary).
Citation #1 is tagged with an {{unreliable source}} template; this needs to be addressed.
I have my concerns as to whether or not OlyBlog.net qualifies as a reliable source, being a wiki of sorts.

Article is not ready for review until substantial additions of things not already there are made, as it would be too brief even if all the other concerns were addressed. I encourage the nominator to improve and greatly expand the article and try again.

Actually, the sources on this topic are few, as performance was from 1920s.

Lead expanded

Changed wording

Merged death

Working on finding alternate sources

OlyBlog said that it was from The White Tops

Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following post by the reviewer was copied from my talk page by me (Matty.007), for completeness

Then perhaps we should wait until more are found, or until the article can be made longer with the ones we do have. A few issues I pointed-out are still in need of adjustment, such as the rather listy form of prose and two of the sources being of questionable reliability. Lazy Bastard Guy 19:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to waiting until more are found, or waiting until the article can be made longer with the references we have, that is unlikely. In fact, having to remove the Find a grave ref will shrink parts of the article more, and it is unlikely that a 1920s performer will have any new sources any time soon. Mat ty.007 19:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

If there were few sources in the first place, there is the chance he was not considered as notable as it seems (the circus may have billed him as the shortest man in the world, that does not mean he was even at the time)

Lead has been improved but not by much

Article is still fairly listy and presents ideas in too many separate paragraphs

Death remains unmerged

Just because OlyBlog said it came from somewhere does not mean it did; please see WP:SPS (policy on using self-published sources for citations)

Again, I really think it would be best right now to withdraw the nomination and continue working on the article until it is ready. Please do not assume I have a personal bone to pick with you, I am only trying to ensure that whatever improvements have yet to be made can be easily made during the review process (if I believed this in the first place I would have put it on hold), and that the review process goes smoothly. I notice the article's talk page has a peer review request on it, so maybe that would be a better avenue for a discussion like this (where also more circus-expert Wikipedians can give feedback; too many people on the GA review page tends to muddle things up - like they say, "too many cooks spoil the broth"). Lazy Bastard Guy 19:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, neither What the Good article criteria are not or Good article criteria say anything about article length. Also, the peer review has been going for near 15 days, the only feedback I got was from a Teahouse request. Second, I didn't say that there weren't any sources about him, but that there were reduced sources about him, given that he lived near 100 years ago. Out of interest, what do you feel also needs to go in the lead? Death section has been merged to career section (I thought I had done that before). The prose is, in addition, "clear and concise", and doesn't ramble where unnecessary, and doesn't merge paragraphs where separate ones are better. I will fix the two references when I get more time, but other than that, I think that the article is OK. Mat ty.007 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, length is an indication of how well the subject has been covered. Good articles don't have to be super long, but based on the GA's I've seen, it pains me to say that this article does not have the satisfactory depth a GA article on the same subject would have. I don't think anyone said there weren't any sources, I merely said if there were few to begin with (as in, he was not given a whole lot of coverage no matter what he did at the time). There is the chance that despite his remarkably-low stature he was just not that exemplary a circus performer. If the peer review has not attracted sufficient attention, I would suggest trying to post in the appropriate forum for help so others see the link and take the chance to give feedback. I will give you credit that the article gives remarkable focus to the subject at hand and stays on-point, and as far as I can tell there is no rambling or excess focus on any particular point.

As for my suggestions about the lead, well, one big thing is aside from his height I don't see what sets him apart from other circus performers. What did he do as part of an act? There is nothing in the article about what he actually did in the big tent, it only says he was there. I would say this is the gamebreaker for the whole thing: if nothing can be found regarding what he did during circus acts, the article may even have to be deleted, as it clearly emphasizes his career as a circus performer yet says almost nothing about him being in the circus. Even then, what he did as a circus performer in the big tent would have to be exemplary in comparison to other performers who don't also have WP articles. Then, outside of that, there's little of note that can't be in some other article as opposed to having its own (e.g. perhaps an article on shortest people who ever lived or something).

On a final note, the lead paragraph reflects on the article and contains no more or less than the rest of the article does. In this case, if this were an acceptably-sized and detailed article for GA purposes, I think it would be just fine as it is (it seems to handle all the basic points of the article as it currently stands, even if an improvement or two could stand to be made). Lazy Bastard Guy 20:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: I will reply to your concerns tomorrow evening, and I have found a source describing his occupation. Mat ty.007 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, likely to reply on Friday. Mat ty.007 05:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I reply in full, are you actually asking whether the subject is notable, or just using it as a point? (To shape my reply.) Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one. As long as you can prove his notability, it won't be an issue, but the article as it stood when last I looked did not have proof. (I just got home from a long shopping trip so I haven't actually checked the article yet.) Lazy Bastard Guy 01:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your tenacity and your willingness to give this article your all. However, I am not certain you completely understand what the WP:GAN process is for: it is for articles that the nominator is certain have reached or almost reached the quality that is expected of a good article. This process can result in one of four outcomes - if it passes, it becomes a good article; if it is put on hold, the nominator or other willing contributors are expected to improve the article in response to the comments raised on the review; if a second opinion is requested, another uninvolved editor will have to drop-in and give their two cents before the review can proceed; and finally, if it is failed, it is removed from the list of nominations and the review acts as a chart by which a prospective user may improve the article for future resubmission.

I understand that you submitted the article for review in the belief that it had "reached or almost reached the quality that is expected of a good article". However, I can assure you that I would not have been the only reviewer to fail the article immediately. It is woefully short; the presentation of what information it does have could be better; and subject's importance is not substantiated. Those are my main three concerns.

I strongly advise you withdraw the nomination for the time being and withhold nomination until the article has become far more than it is right now. I don't understand why you immediately undid my verdict and placed the article back up for review; I am certain this breaches a certain consensus. If I find it, I will be sure to let you know, but in the future, please know that immediately dismissing a reviewer's concerns and insisting that said reviewer is wrong is frowned-upon by the Wikipedia community, especially if you don't make a very convincing case as to why the reviewer was wrong. (I am not certain others would find your case convincing either.)

I can't articulate precisely what frustrates me so much about this argument we're having. My conclusion was and continues to be that the article is simply not a good article as yet. I recommend you look at other GA biography articles for inspiration as to how to fix this one up to make it even better. I further do not understand why, according to you, this should be considered as high-quality as other currently-good articles; comparing notes with other articles, it seems quite obvious to me that this is not GA-material as yet.

In the interim, I have no plans to WP:AFD this article, rest assured. I will not WP:PROD it either, nor does it qualify under one of the WP:CSD criteria. I do believe, however, that it would be best for both of us to bow out of this argument as we clearly don't agree, and I have said my piece and made my point quite clear. If you leave this up for nomination and it still looks much the same as it did when I first reviewed it, don't be surprised if it fails once again.

I wish you the best of luck with this article, but I refuse to be a part of this discussion any longer. I will put this up for a second opinion as a way of giving-up my responsibility for this review, but note that I still believe it should be failed at this point in time. Again, I do not have some personal vendetta against you, I saw this article as the only one under the "Miscellaneous" heading over at WP:GAN and decided to see what made it so unusual it didn't belong in any other category (which is nothing - if the appropriate topic is filled-in it will appear under the appropriate heading, and there is at least one for this article - consider "Media and drama"). It was only coincidence that we ended-up arguing about it. I swear to you I did not want that to happen, and I do apologize if at any point during this process I came-off as rude to you. But I think it's wise to be the first to walk away. Lazy Bastard Guy 06:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will think on withdrawing my nomination, but to respond to one of your remarks, I undid your instant fail of the article as I wanted to work on it, as you can at GA, as opposed to being told 'It's failed, here's what you can do for next time'. I never actually said that you were wrong, just that I wanted to see if I could address the issues you raised, rather than fail being forced on me. However, thank you for partaking in this review, and thank you for the points to work on. Mat ty.007 07:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologise if I came off as too persistent, or aggressive. Mat ty.007 07:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually one of the nicest people I've had to debate with; if anything the only one who should be apologizing is me. However, I do stand by my belief that the review process can result in an immediate fail if the article does not meet a minimum standard, which (again as I believe) this article still does not. One reason for this is there is a long queue of articles waiting to be reviewed, and to make it easier on reviewers not every article submittied needs to be waitlisted. Only those that are very nearly there already should be placed on hold; if the article is not close enough already it just clogs-up the queue as we wait for it to be brought up to grade. I've noticed as recently as two months ago there were only on average 350-400 total nominations on any given day, but now that number has gone up to 400-450, and naturally that means it's only gotten harder to keep up. God bless. Lazy Bastard Guy 07:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I think I will withdraw the nomination for now to work on the things yo described, and resubmit it when I have fixed those things. Thanks, Mat ty.007 09:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LazyBastardGuy, since Matty.007 is withdrawing the nomination (per the last post above), and you are the official reviewer, I think it falls to you to close it. Matty.007 will be resubmitting at some point in the future, after the issues have been addressed. Note: before I realized that this is what needed to be done, I changed the subtopic from "Miscellaneous" to "Media and drama", since Howerton was both a movie actor and a circus performer, both of which come under that category. ("Miscellaneous" should only be used in those very rare circumstances when no topic or subtopic fits at all.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Since he said he was withdrawing it, I thought it fell to him, but it had to fall to somebody, so it might as well be me. Closed. Lazy Bastard Guy 03:11, 24 September 2013 (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.