Talk:Tolkien's legendarium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Michael Martinez (talk · contribs) 17:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a good candidate. Many recent changes have been made by the person who nominated the article. The article itself makes numerous statements of fact - contradicting previous article assertions - without providing references. The point of view is not neutral.Michael Martinez (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Martinez - Welcome. I'm used to working with reviewers of different kinds, have taken hundreds of articles through the process, and I respond promptly to requests for changes; almost anything can be reshaped and developed if GAN shows it to be necessary. Your starting remarks make me wonder whether you understand the GAN process? - if not, please read the instructions and familiarize yourself with the criteria; I'll do my best to assist you as well as to deal with your concerns. Now, to this article: I am confident that this article is carefully written and thoroughly referenced (the lead, as usual, relies on the citations in the text, so the references are not repeated there, but EVERYTHING is cited). As for the "recent changes ... by [nom]", this is usual and a mark of hard work, not of low quality - the idea is that one builds an article from reliable sources, and if those express differing opinions, one notes and cites those, so that the reader gets an idea of the topic and the scholarship that underlies it. In this case, the concept of "legendarium" has been defined more tightly or more loosely, and the article carefully explains that fact, which is central to the topic.

Please let me know what, in detail, needs to be improved, based on the GA criteria, and I'll work on those things. Alternatively, if you don't want to proceed, let me know and we can start the process over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opening comment is quite precise about the lack of references. Your activity on the Tolkien articles is highly unusual behavior. You don't appear to understand what neutral point of view is. I recommend you review that page (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ) and consider how your contributions don't align with Wikipedia's intentions. The fact you're editing articles that have attracted little interest from many other contributors doesn't mean you can organize everything as you see fit. You should be commenting about your intentions to edit articles on the Talk pages so that others have a chance to comment and guide you on the process. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully cited (referenced) to reliable sources, except for the lead which per policy summarizes the cited text below, so there is no "lack of references" in the article. A GAN is not the place for a reviewer to comment on another editor's behaviour, that is inappropriate and unacceptable, but I'll just say this: it is entirely usual for an editor to work intensively on an area (say, Military history), often for many years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Wikipedia page that indexes articles about literary terminology (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_literary_terms ). If you browse the articles, you'll see they are very different from the way you have rewritten the Legendarium article. Merely throwing in citations doesn't mask the fact that you're presenting your personal point of view. The article as it appeared prior to your many edits was very different from what you've constructed in recent months (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien%27s_legendarium&oldid=1002107343 ). These differences aren't the result of gradual evolution and correction through a process of community contributions. The current article does not meet Good Article guidelines, and that you were the principal author of the most recent changes to the article that gave it the current form conflicts with your proposal for Good Article status. This isn't how Wikipedia works.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see we don't agree; it's normal and fine to look out scholarly sources on an article and expand it. The article was formally and independently reviewed at GA. Let's see what other editors think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the minimal discussion (and the minimal number of participants in the discussion), it's obvious the article was not properly reviewed for Good Article status.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This IS the review for Good Article status; there is no requirement for preceding discussion, though (mainly for FAC) editors sometimes go to WP:Peer Review first. Feel free to say what you think needs to be improved, according to the GA criteria, and I'll do my best to fix whatever needs fixing, restructure whatever needs restructuring, add whatever needs adding; and feel free to ask for a second opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this IS the review for the Good Article proposal. And while there is no minimum requirement for discussion and review of an article prior to nominating it for Good Article status, it's clear and obvious this article is the work of largely 1 person. The lack of a neutral point of view is the greatest problem with the article. The complete rewrite of the earlier article in order to present a specific point of view violates Wikipedia's guidelines.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for articles at GAN to be the work of any number of editors, including just one; indeed, many more specialized topics in all parts of Wikipedia are basically the work of single editors; that is not a problem for policy, and has no bearing on neutrality. This article is scrupulously neutral, explaining the meanings of "legendarium" as used both by Tolkien himself and by different scholars; I have no preference for any one of those meanings, and have no point of view of my own on the subject, other than that it was interesting to learn more about it, so no guideline or policy has been violated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you completely rewrote the article to represent your point of view. It's not neutral. Nor did you discuss these changes in the Talk page before making extensive deletions and rewriting the article. Those changes might survive scrutiny over time (or not) but proposing your rewrite for Good Article status is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a platform for rewarding one's own contributions.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if an article is weakly-structured, lacks detail, lacks citations, or has other technical issues, then it is normal for editors who are willing to volunteer to work on the article to make any changes that may seem to be necessary. It is also fine for editors to make bold changes if there is good reason for those; other editors are at all times free to revert or comment; if they revert, then a talk page discussion begins, which usually resolves the matter. This is called the BRD cycle, for Bold-Revert-Discuss, and it is how we normally work. It is also normal for editors who feel they have brought an article up to a good standard to propose it as a Good Article Nomination, which of course brings it to a wider audience for review and improvement; there is nothing non-neutral about that, it's just saying "I worked on this, does it now meet the criteria?". This is entirely appropriate; if you don't like the process, feel free to fail it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer who stumbled on this review, I'd like to provide a fresh perspective. Reading through Michael Martinez's critiques, I think that they display an unfamiliarity with the Good Article criteria. A review needs to explain what criteria the page does not meet and then state what is needed to bring the article up to standard. I see several references above to the article not adhering to neutrality, but saying that is not enough to make it true – you need to provide specific examples of a lack of neutrality. Another critique from Michael is that the article has a lack of references. This article includes a well organized bibliography, and I see only three sentences or paragraphs that do not end with a citation. If I were reviewing this article, I would require citations to be added in those areas before passing the review, but I would not fail it outright for that. On the whole, this article is well referenced. If you think that is not true, again, you need to provide specific examples. Lastly, the fact that Chiswick Chap wrote much of this article himself is not an indication of any wrongdoing. In fact, it's far from it; many of Wikipedia's best written articles were written largely by only a single editor. It is typical for an editor to stumble upon a poorly written page and improve it to GA status. Michael, as this is your first time doing a review, I think it would be beneficial for you to reach out to one of the Good article mentors for help. Tkbrett (✉) 01:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]