Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Keep. The case for instability was not manifest. The case for lack of neutrality was generally refuted. Geometry guy 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted WP:CHICAGO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:USPE, WP:WPBIO, WP:USC, User:Tvoz. (User:Wasted Time R already involved in discussion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article still be considered GA status? A quick look at the edit history and the arguments on the talk page shows that this article no longer meets criteria #5: "The article is stable". I realize that this is probably only a temporary condition, but it will most likely last at least until the general election in November. Do we really want to display this article as a good article for the next 9-10 months when it obviously is suffering from multiple on-going edit wars? Previously, it was an excellent article and deserved the GA status, but lately I can literally refresh the page and get a different article all day long. I suggest is be delisted until it again becomes stable. (In the interest of disclosure, I have only made 2 or 3 edits ever to this article and am not adamant whether or not those get reverted.)--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background/comments. This article was recently brought to GAR, and I closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR, as it concerned a content dispute: see the discussion here. For further discussion of stability issues, particularly in relation to presidential candidates, see here. I hold the view that instability caused by a content dispute is only likely to be a GA issue in one of the following cases:
    1. Disagreements between editors are compromising the quality of the article;
    2. It impossible to assess the quality of the article because it is changing so much;
    3. The article will change substantially in the near future, so assessing its quality now is pointless.
Otherwise content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, or using dispute resolution processes, and not GAR. In particular, for articles with political significance, there is a danger that GA status will be used as a political football, which is something I hope anyone who cares about GA will oppose at every opportunity! :-)
So what is the situation here? The most recent diff probably illustrates the kind of changes that are going on at the moment. This restored a sentence to the lead which may or may not be OR: by WP:LEAD, it should be covered later in the article, so the OR issue hinges on whether it is, and whether citations are provided: see the talk page discussion for information about this.
However, that aside, if you take the current version and go back a few days (I went back three) to a previous version by the same editor, you get this diff. There is actually very little change: the main difference is that content has been added to the "College" section, and the super Tuesday results have been updated.
I don't see article quality being compromised here. I also don't see unstable change, just good old fashioned incremental improvement. I suggest, as in the previous GAR, that we leave it to the editors to sort out their differences on article talk. And actually, from what I see, they are engaging each other in high quality discussion. Geometry guy 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is stable. When the POV-warriors show up, there are always quite a number of conscientious editors who keep the article stable in the basic GA version. Here are the two versions (current versus today's):
6 June 2007 GA version
11 February 2008 (current version).
  • There aren't any huge changes since GA promotion that would merit delisting. Bellwether BC 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I do not think it qualifies for GA. It is not stable enough for GA and would be much less stable if not for the extreme article control being exercised by a few watchers. In addition, many editors view it as not being NPOV compliant as evidenced by the content of this talk page topic and, to a lesser extent, this one. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC
    • Please note that this user is one of the users who periodically attempt to force their POV into the article, and who slap NPOV tags on it when those who are trying to keep it at GA status revert his "changes." It's stable, M.ge, and it's no thanks to you, as you've attempted many times to make it unstable. POV-warriors trying to force unnecessary--and even harmful (to the article)--changes does not an "unstable" article make. Sorry. Bellwether BC 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General note. At GAR we base our discussion on whether the article meets the GA criteria. Some of these criteria (such as stability and NPOV, which seem to be the main issues here) are partly subjective, but the role played by individual editors in bringing the article to GAR is irrelevant. In particular, just as GAR has no precrime department ("this article is about to become unstable"), it has no counterfactual department ("this article would be unstable if it weren't for the editors controlling it"). WP:OWN is not a GA issue: it needs to be resolved through other channels. Stability and NPOV are GA issues, but decisions here are based on the state of the article and policy, nothing more, nothing less. Geometry guy 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no need to speedy close. This is a complex article with a complicated edit history. We'll need some additional time to examine the article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, it's not that "complicated." On one side of the fence stand folks like myself, who may or may not like Clinton (I don't), but are interested in keeping the article neutral and at GA status. On the other side are POV-warriors--who are normally, but not always, anti-Clinton--and who attempt to make the article unstable by starting faux content disputes, where none exist. The basic content of the article is fairly stable, especially for an article that is basically documenting a current event. The only "instability" comes from the attacks of the POV-warriors. Bellwether BC 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. Majoreditor's comment is partly in response to a thread which has now been moved to user talk (NB. I do not support or oppose how it was moved to user talk, but I think user talk is the right place for that discussion). Geometry guy 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would (reluctantly) agree with Majoreditor here. I was initially tempted to close this GAR as a content dispute, but decided against. Assuming good faith (as I always try to do!), this is clearly a suggestion by an independent editor that that the GA status of this article needs to be looked at carefully. My "reluctance" now only stems from a concern that this GAR discussion may end up not being very helpful. I would ask everyone to please prove me wrong by basing comments here purely on the article, its recent edit history, and the good article criteria. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the only problem cited in the initial request for review, is Criteria #5 "Stability", and this issue has been shown to be not an issue (per both GeometryGuy and my own posts), I am still strongly in favor of a quick close. This article is definitely not unstable, per the above-mentioned criteria. Bellwether BC 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the level of edit wars is identified in criteria#5 as an ingredient of stability, I think it would be useful for editors to have a look at the attack thread Bellwether moved from here to WilliamThweatt's user talk as an example of the type of edit wars and personal attacks some of the primary editors of this article engage in all too often[1]. These bad faith assumptions and attacks result in an extreme level of instability and edit wars which turn away many good editors and thereby diminish the quality of the BLP, in my opinion. As exemplified with the unprovoked attack on WilliamThweatt right here inside this nomination, edit wars and arguments at the H.Clinton BLP are initiated and prolonged by some of the regular contributors as much as, if not more than, the irregular contributors. Not only do these altercations destabalize the article, they also make the concept of "Good Article" seem totally out of place in regards to this BLP as it currently stands. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the kind of utter nonsense that those of us trying to keep the article up to GA standards have to deal with. Take these kind of discussions to talk. Categorizing what I wrote as an "attack thread" is more of your hyperbole, and is, as I said, utter nonsense. Bellwether BC 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, as GeometryGuy mentioned, NPOV criteria may also be something to consider if the editors so choose to do so. I'll be saying nothing further regarding this reassessment. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your supposed NPOV "concerns" have been answered numerous times by multiple editors. You simply choose to ignore us. Bellwether BC 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usual note. GAR discussions are not based on agreeing or disagreeing with the nominator's issues, but on whether the article meets the criteria. In my view the stability issue raised by the nominator is weak, as I indicated in my initial post to this discussion, but that's not the only GA issue, and all of the GA criteria need to be addressed. Geometry guy 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, even if no other issues were even raised, that doesn't matter? That seems a bit silly, but okay. It would seem if the nominator was only concerned with one aspect, and that aspect is shown to not be any sort of real problem, then the review would close quickly. I'm not sure I understand the point of undergoing all this rigamarole, when it's basically two or three POV-warriors that continually rehash the same NPOV "concerns", and who pop in from time to time to try to insert their views into the article. I'll leave this discussion to those of you who are more familiar with this process. That an article can be nominated for review on such thin evidence is discouraging to those of us who work hard to make it a good article, no matter our political views. (And mine are quite clear, and not biased for Sen. Clinton, just for the record M.ge.) Bellwether BC 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can nominate an article for GAR at any time, although inappropriate nominations may be procedurally closed: this happened for the previous GAR nomination of this article. As for considering all of the criteria, this is again because GAR focusses on whether the article meets the criteria, not on editor disagreements and content disputes. I'm sorry that you find this discouraging, but the plus side is that if this discussion closes as "keep" it is not merely a rejection of the nominator's concerns, but a reassertion that the article is good, and the GAR can be quoted if the status of the article is challenged again. Geometry guy 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's like sausage-making; the end product is good but the process is stomach-turning.
The article is surprisingly good. There are minor MoS problems and some dead links needing repair; these issues don't merit de-listing. And yes, there have been POV issues which creep into the article. However, the consensus process is doing a decent job resolving POV creep.
Thoughtful individuals may disagree on the definition of article stability. To me, this one is more stable than wobbly. Sure, it's a frequently-edited article subject to periodic, short-term edit wars. However, the edit wars tend to play out quickly; so do most of the less dramatic content disputes. Recent disputes over relatively minor issues don't hurt the article's overall quality. Majoreditor (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am wondering whether Majoreditor would say it would qualify for a new listing right now. Is the bar for de-listing higher than the bar for a new listing? Just wondering about that aspect. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GAR evaluation uses the same standards as GAN. GA-listed articles don't enjoy free passes here. Check out some of the other GAR discussions as examples. Majoreditor (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've looked at the recent edit history and been through the article, and find Majoreditor's analysis completely accurate, albeit a little too incisive to read immediately before or after eating :-)
My initial comments above about the stability of the article stand. Further I have not found any serious GA issues with the article in any other respect. I tried to fix a few minor points on my read-through, but did not fix every issue I found, only a few indicative examples. For instance, I think there is a tendancy to wikilink long phrases, which is not helpful; there is also a tendancy to cite sources mid-sentence, which is sometimes necessary, but it breaks up the flow for the reader, and so it should be minimized. There is also a tendancy to pile on noun phrases, where a good encyclopedic style would use multiple sentences, or at least semicolons. Tony1 has a great guide on issues like this. These are mostly not GA issues, though.
I changed one section heading to a more neutral title: describing HRC's First Ladyship as "uncharacteristic" is an implicit, unsourced suggestion that there is a "characteristic" role. That may be true, but it needs to be sourced in the article, not implied by a section heading. The external links need some formatting, and access dates would be appreciated. I made a start by adding cite web templates, but there is still some tidying to be done here. I have to say, though, good work! As Majoreditor suggests, reading the edit history is a bit painful, but reading the article is really not unpleasant at all! Geometry guy 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial comments also stand. The article is pov by omission, shallow, trite and censored to the point of sanitized boredom. It's like reading a BLP on Richard Nixon with only a passing mention of Watergate, or a BLP on Dwight Eisenhower without a link to his farewell address to the nation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your initial comments may "stand", but they are not any truer than they were when you initially made them. Bellwether BC 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, saying your comments aren't true is not a personal attack in any way. Your accusations against the editors who dare oppose you ("like reading a BLP on Richard Nixon with only a passing mention of Watergate") smacks of a real POV-based tirade, and should be disregarded as such. This doesn't mean that you are a bad person, it just means that your opinions on this article are incredibly wrong-headed. You should also refrain from simply removing people's comments as a "personal attack", especially when they weren't a "personal attack" at all. Bellwether BC 04:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully suggest that both of you try to lower the temperature a little, and think twice before adding comments to this discussion which supply no new relevant information concerning the question of whether this article meets the criteria. Thanks, Geometry guy 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck comments, but left small note, that is simply procedurally correct. Bellwether BC 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the arguments listed in the nomination, any article with active editorial involvment should be delisted. I am sure Barack Obama is as actively edited and it does not need to be nominated for WP:FAR. Any good article has reasons why it is not a WP:FA. Nothing in this article is so bad that it should be delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony the Tiger's analysis above, and more significantly, the arguments laid out by MajorEditor. This article does not have significant instability, and has not deteriorated in basic quality since it's initial promotion. In fact, I would contend it's a better article now than it was then. Additionally, I say keep based upon the specious nature of the arguments presented for delisting(see below). Bellwether BC 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-List per nominator William Thweatt's analysis above as well as many NPOV concerns addressed as recently as this week by editors such as TSOD[2] and ClassicFilms[3]. In addition, recent evidence of instability and major revisions as recently as this week as shown here and here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "polarizing" material is a long story, but to make it short, once reworked it will be coming back stronger and better than before. It wasn't in the article at the time of first reaching GA, in any case. It was added in preparation for FAC, during which discussion (and until very recently) it wasn't objected to. I don't see its temporary removal for renovation as a cause for de-listing, although I strongly feel the article is less good without it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in support of keeping GA status - I am not an uninvolved reviewer, as I work extensively on this article and on Barack Obama and numerous other political personalities, but I was notified of this action (thanks, Tony) and wish to comment. In my view this article meets and even surpasses the standard GA criteria. It is a complex subject that needs to be kept to a manageable size, and it has done so pretty successfully. The article is well-written (not by me) and extremely well-sourced with verifiable, reliable sources; it is illustrated, broad, covering her entire life and varied career including her presidential campaign, and it is neutral. Indeed, like all political articles in an election year, questions have been raised from time to time about its neutrality by both people who think it is too pro-Clinton and those who think it is too anti-Clinton - which I think is evidence that the editors have done their job in keeping it neutral. Various controversies surrounding her, large and small, have been well integrated into the article and its notes and sub-articles, without giving them undue weight. Questions raised about neutrality are thoroughly responded to and discussed on the talk page - there have not been major edit wars such as were seen in some other articles like Mitt Romney which had to be full-protected for a time recently until warring stopped. Hillary Clinton has not been subject to that kind of problem, despite the controversial nature of the subject. In fact it has been remarkably stable, given the subject's prominence in the current news cycle, but this article is much broader than the presidential campaign - and most of it does not change at all. There have been attempts to insert POV material into the article - such as this and many others, but there are many eyes watching it and such edits are quickly removed for discussion on talk if they are not perceived to be mere vandalism. No article, including FAs, is above criticism and improvement, but I see absolutely no reason to de-list this article. (Noted with thanks to Geometry Guy are the comments about reference style which will be addressed - at one point we had them all in the cite template format and will work on catching up on that for refs that have been added since then; will also look at reducing some long wikilinks which I too am not particularly fond of.) Tvoz |talk 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've followed this for over a week now, engaging both with the article and the talk page. Improvements have been accepted, poor edits (including several of my own:) have been fixed, vandalism and POV edits have been swiftly reverted or removed, and discussion on the talk page has been constructive and polite. This supports all my earlier comments, as well as the above comments of Tvoz.
Issues such as stability and neutral point of view have a subjective interpretation, and for as long as HRC remains a presidential candidate, there is little chance of clear blue water between this article and the borderlines, so I understand and respect that some editors may feel that this article is sailing, or in danger of sailing, too close to the wind. For now, though, I cannot see any case for delisting this article, but I urge regular editors to be respectful, thoughtful, and engaging towards any new input to the article, and hope the article will continue to improve! Geometry guy 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/2&oldid=734494134"