Wikipedia:Relevance/Review B

This review applies to "Version 2.1" of WP:RELEVANCE, dated 2007-07-16T22:03:21, and credited effectively to different authors than version 3.0 which, while based on 2.0, is said to have a different emphasis.

Where Wikipedia:Relevance/Review A addresses text from version 2.0, Review A may be applicable, but this will consider those parts in the unchanged context of version 2.0. This is a new review, with none of Review A copy-pasted or otherwise consulted in the preparation.

It is not my intention to rate either Proposed Guidine for "inclusionism", nor "deletism" (which I think should be deletionism, but never mind). My intention is to look for practicality as a guideline, and the possibility of compatibility with Wikipedia standards (either as they currently are, or with plausible changes).

Also, as I've been tarbabied into doing two reviews, I'm no longer apologizing for anything.

Lead section

Relevance deals with the relation of an article's content to the article's subject.

Snore. You people can't write for beans. Relevance is whether something is in the right article.

Strong Positive: well-considered, appropriate links to other guidelines, explained helpfully for people who have come to the wrong article.

Nutshell

Weak, insufficiently concrete. I'm not confident this addresses any problem.

Terms "fundamental" and "impact" are subjective.

What is relevance?

Relevance refers to the degree to which information is related to a subject.

Gradual measures are not helpful in guidelines. We need to delineate relevant and not relevant. Tell me where the line is.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is little limit to the amount of information that it can hold.

Make this more concise. Explaining what "Wikipedia is not a paper encylcopedia" means wastes the reader's time. Try something like, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but ... (next sentence). If you are uncomfortable with assuming readers know what WP:NOT#PAPER means, you might say Unlike a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia has unlimited capacity, but ...

However, the depth of Wikipedia's coverage must be balanced against the readability (and verifiability) of its articles.

Positive for mentioning readability. This hints at possible reasoning behind this guideline. Sentence needs to be more concise.

Verifiability is off topic. Omit.

Wikipedia articles should aim to provide an overview of their subject. Longer articles can offer a comprehensive overview, touching upon many facets of the subject. The longest of articles should be kept under 10,000 words or so to preserve its readability and focus (see article size); additional coverage can be provided via subarticles and links to related subjects.

Blah blah blah. I didn't come here to read about Article size. Omit.

Ultimately ... These types are listed at ....

Nothing about relevance. Beyond the first two sentences, this section tells me nothing about what relevance is. And the first two sentences are not actionable. Cut back to first two sentences, rewrite those, start again.

What Wikipedia is not

Bingo. WP:NOT is the core guideline that most addresses relevance, and is a likely source for the information this guideline needs. A guideline that conflicts with WP:NOT will almost certainly be shot down.

In the way an unwritten principle of "Privacy" was found in the U.S. Constitution (but never made explicit by the Founding Fathers), there may be a few sensible overarching principles of which WP:NOT comprises examples.

What this principle might happen to be is a key insight missing from this proposed guideline.

The subject of an article

The subject of an article should match the article's title.

Okay as far as it goes. Not worth a paragraph of examples.

the article can be renamed (via the move tab)

Few if any situations concerning relevance will be fixed by moving the article. This suggestion probably introduces more potential problems than solutions.

Summary style info is okay but premature.

Establishing relevance

Section title suggests it should be actionable stuff. Don't let us down here.

Standard vagueness warning on "fundamental" and "impact".

Impact

Vague and not actionable.

Example

It has been verifiably and repeatedly demonstrated that the Disney corporation has, in many ways, had impact on The Simpsons, which would be

• in very diffent form, and
• perceived differently had the viewing public not been trained by Disney animation (not to mention their general cultural blah blah),

thus satisfying two (where only one is needed) of the Impact standards under WP:RELEVANCE. Therefore, my Disney additions to The Simpsons are relevant.

This may seems like WikiLawyering, but the recommendations made in this section don't tell me what to include or exclude in my situation, and may ambiguously imply some plainly irrelevant things must be kept as relevant. If that's wrong, how would anyone know what this section really means?

Fundamental information

Okay as far as it goes. Too long at three sentences. I don't see this solving any problems, but I can see this being included in a larger, more actionable description of relevance.

Distinguishing traits

Okay as far as it goes. I doubt such traits will be diputed as "not relevant".

Context

Positive. First sentence may be going somewhere — potential for dealing with the "edges" without effecting the "center".

Then wanders into Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. Disappointing. Delete all but first sentence, then have an inspired vision.

Connections between subjects

Okay but longwinded. Should start with A fact that connects two subjects may be important to one of the subjects, but not the other.

This is commonly the case with creative works that are based on, or otherwise incorporate...

This part is hard to understand, and if I understand it, does not mean much. Perhaps you can give examples here.

The paragraph leading to "In popular culture" is more about Summary Style, and should be omitted from this section.

Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is worth mentioning, and probably is part of another great idea describing relevance. Not this paragraph.

Relevance of biographical details

Biographical articles are often not about people, but about what brought those people to the public's attention.

Not strictly. Details about the Principle of relativity, even in summary, belong in their own article, not Einstein's bio.

The rest of this section is not relevant to subject of relevance. Omit. Delete entire section. Start again with whatever was meant.

See also

Positive. Concise and well-chosen.

Overall

While my intention was not to compare the two versions, I can't help but notice 2.0 lacks some of the prolixity that dogs 3.0. However, 2.0 is hardly "tight".

This does not resemble a proposed guideline. It's more like loose notes preceding an essay, needing a lot more ideas. And by essay standards, much of this would be discarded in later drafts as not useful.

There's a desparate grasping here that doesn't hint at comprehension of what would be needed or useful.

2.0 contains little or no actionable information. Its solves no problem I can imagine.