Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Laurel and Hardy/1

Laurel and Hardy[edit]

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

Result: Delist. The article was nominated for a community GAR due to concerns over referencing. The GAR has been open for over 11 weeks and there are still citation needed tags on the article. There are four editors who agree with delisting. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The article has been given GA status at least 4 hours ago. However, this article fails 2b as sections of the article, "Foreign language films", "Supporting cast", "Music", "Lost films", "The Sons of the Desert", "Colorized versions", are unreferenced. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article. I've added some refs and asked on the talk page for some more. Szzuk (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sections have been referenced now. Szzuk (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Lead does not adequately cover the article per WP:Lead, so not meeting GA criteria 1(b). There are dubious uses of lists. There is an extra-ordinary amount of unreferenced material which would call for a quick fail. There are some sweeping statements, quotes, personal comments, and challengable assertions that need citing. It's possible that the reviewer just read through the article without paying attention to the sourcing. These things happen. Anyway, clearly fails 2(b). There are two listy sections which contain dubious extra material, "In other popular culture" and "Supporting cast". These sections need to be tidied up or removed. This extra material causes the article to come up against 3(b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". The reference section, though not impacting on GA criteria, is not helpful. There is a long list of reference books, and it is not clear which ones have been used in building the article and which ones are simply listed as recommended further reading. Added to which the external links section is clearly failing WP:EL. The article has been on GAR for over a month with insufficient attempt to address the referencing issue. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will make changes to the lead, list sections, links - it'll take a while. It did occur to me when reading that you felt that the article could quick fail on unreferenced material, that you'd applied featured article criteria to 2b. Inline citations are deliberatley less severe for GA because if you need cites for everything you're practically at featured article status. The article is actually completely accurate so there isn't much worth challenging. If a lot more refs are needed I'll have to look for assistance. Szzuk (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated the list sections, updated the lead, deleted the unnecessary links. I'm going to need more input on the refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Around 15 refs have been added since the start of the GAR, 3 separate contributors have added them and more can be provided if necessary. If you feel more are required please add inline cite requests to the article. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference section has been split into further reading and those used for cites. Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a substantial section called Before the teaming, which has two sub-sections. None of this is in the lead. Either the information in Before the teaming section is not needed, or it should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It would be worth going through the article and paying careful attention to building the lead.

Done Have updated lead. Article needs to mention they were established/experienced actors before the duo. Will recheck to see if I've missed any other sections. Szzuk (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long is "soon"?

Done Deleted, too subjective. Szzuk (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very long reading list, some of it is fairly general, and some is not helpful - In the Night Kitchen is not about L&H, it's a children's comic book that just uses their images. See WP:FURTHER for guidance on Further reading lists.

There is a world of difference between a comic book and an illustrated picture book by an internationally recognized author, Maurice Sendak. The reference is clear that this is the first and most prominent use of the imagery of Laurel and Hardy because of the author's upbringing and constant attendance as a child at matinee performances of the Laurel and Hardy films. The inclusion of the image not only is an example of how a popular cultural reference made it into the popular mainstream media but that the Sendak works have now been the subject of university programs and especially in the case of award-winning In the Night Kitchen, the example of influence in a child's mind led to influence of other children, far removed from Sendak's generation and how they were introduced to the story of Laurel and Hardy. Sendak even referred to his early years as ones of poverty and deprivation with only the continual visits to a local theatre to see the comedy duo on screen, as his only respite. In the Night Kitchen was not only a recreation of the author's childhood thoughts but also an homage to the one aspect of a long-lost past. FWiW, ~~because the original paragraph with its quotes and citations is now completely lost, no wonder nothing makes sense.~~ Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Done The further reading section is gone. I think the Sendak book notes should stay as they add to the article. Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference section could be presented more helpfully. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. I have tidied up a bit.
Done Tidied. Szzuk (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on removing the lists.
The referencing is still weak. There are still opinions, quotes and statements that could be challenged. It is a policy requirement that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." And GA criteria specifies opinions, quotes and controversial statements that could be challenged.
Done See below. Szzuk (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is saying this: "Laurel and Hardy's onscreen personas are of two dim but eternally optimistic men, secure in their perpetual and impregnable innocence. Their humor is physical, but their accident-prone buffoonery is distinguished by their affable personalities and mutual devotion; essentially "children" in an adult world." That reads like an authorial summary, but is not cited to any source.

Done Deleted. Szzuk (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of adequate sourcing is a problem for this article even without a GAR taking place. It is generally easier to cite when building an article and the sources are right there on your desk, than it is to look for sources after the article has been written. I will be looking to close this as a delist in 7 days unless there has been significant improvements on the issues raised. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see this now. I combined two of the sections on style of comedy and characterizations and deleted around a third of the material. It was pretty weak and would never be verifiable. Szzuk (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I finished a pretty major copyedit of the history section and removed the more cites tag. Deleted quite a lot of weak material and re-ordered etc. There might be a few bits and pieces that still need citing but nothing I could see. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::This is possibly the worst rewrite I have ever seen in a good article. Instead of finding sources for areas of contention, whole sections have disappeared to the extent that the reviewer is not seeing the initial work at all. The article has been "sliced and diced" into an incomprehensible mess. I almost feel like go ahead with the "delist" and then restore the article to its original pre-May 2011 state and then start over with the references at hand and make it a readable and verifiable work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't going to be possible to source statements that I deleted. I deleted what was challengeable, weak, not focussed - generally not encyclopedic. You're also aware I've been editing this aricle for several years - I most certainly did not slice and dice, I left the important information. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that, "It wasn't going to be possible to source statements that I deleted"? Isn't that the way that the original authors would gather supporting material to corroborate their development of the article? I know that editing other's work is often a question of "too many cooks" but the generally accepted editorial dictum is to preserve the original intent ("voice") of the author rather than instilling a new direction. I am further puzzled how a good article in April is considered unredeemable by May 2011. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The original GA was weak, so it was sent for review after 4 hours. That's fair enough, I expected to have to do more copyediting. I don't think I did instill a new direction, I haven't added comment I removed that which I felt was unverifiable/challengeable. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The major concern I have is that the amount of removal of content that was linked to the body of the text has left a large list of reference sources that are now unconnected with the article. In stating a case for the use of Sendak references, I scanned the article to find no mention of the original statement. In doing a cursory check, there are 1,000 words missing from the body from April–June 2011. With such a major change, reducing the article by 16%+, and scarce mention in the talk page regarding these changes, you are surprised that I am surprised? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

All of the sources used for inline cites are now listed in the bibliography. It is impossible for me or anyone else to know which books in the further reading section were used to help write the article without the original author having put cites inline. I mentioned the GAR on the talk page on several occasions. WP:Further reading mentions this section should be limited. It would be helpful if you could think of a way of limiting it. Szzuk (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the statements that were derived from the reference sources no longer exist in the body; I will await the reviewer's final comments and decision. The next step may be to undertake a complete rewrite if warranted as the article itself was the culmination of many years work and many contributors' contributions yet now has become significantly different, never mind the niceties of doing a basic style and consistency check. The reason why there are so many references in the so-called "further reading" is that these sources were once used to support and verify the individual statements made in the article. ~~The only recourse to the massive deletion of text is that there will be a digital record of the earlier versions with which to begin again.~~ FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, time to get off my meds. On a veeeeery careful re-reading of the revised edit, it isn't as drastic a change as I first dramatically and harshly characterized. My apologies to Szzuk, who has tried to do a masterful, if not always consistent job of revising the article to "streamline" it, although some revision may still be necessary. See new changes today. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I accept your apology. I'm not going to get much more opportunity to edit before the GAR closes however I trust your additions will be helpful. Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Misunderstanding cleared up. Szzuk (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De-list - Several issues throughout article. I suggest a de-list, and then a re-nomination with a proper review. Several basic grammar issues, violations of basic MoS and awkward paragraphing. Would be happy to post several poor prose examples if required or asked for.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could easily be construed as a bad faith comment, however I will assume good faith. I do not wish to point out the prose problems with your article - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dreamlover (song)/1 and I have no obligation to do so. Szzuk (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with you or "Dreamlover". Take it as you'd like. Just so you're satisfied, I'll post actual evidence shortly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a few references and did some copy editing. Could not work out these sentences:

Hal Roach spoke scathingly about the film (despite box office takings to the contrary) and Laurel's behavior during it's making. How is box office takings contrary to speaking scathingly? Maybe "despite [high/good/????] box office takings"
often played by Mae Busch, Anita Garvin and Daphne Pollard Did they have three wives? Should the "and" be an "or"? Or if Pollard was always one of the wives could it be rephrased to "often played by Daphne Pollard and Mae Busch or Anita Garvin".

I commend the work done by Szzuk in adding references, but it could do with some more. Added some "cite needed" tags where I feel they are necessary (i.e. statements regarding their popularity). This has been going a while so delisting is understandable, but as long as it is continueing to be improved I would be inclined to let it go a little longer. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed what I can but I don't have the books to rebuild the article, delist was always a possibility, will just wait and see. Szzuk (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started going through the article in order to tidy up and cite, but it does require more than a few hours work. I'll now delist. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]