Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dancing the Dream/1

Dancing the Dream[edit]

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

Result: No action. The review raised some valid concerns. Articles can be renominated at any time, so in the absence of further comments, it is best to close this reassessment to allow for a fresh review. Geometry guy 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article was inappropriately quick-failed. I was able to address in minutes the concerns left at the review page that I felt were reasonable. No time was allocated to discuss or amend issues. It was stated that only "one or two reviews" were used. Only one or two reviews is what is available on this book. It was stated that two section were copied word-for-word from a book, which is untrue. It was stated that the said book was unreliable, which is untrue; it is reliable and used in the FAs We Are the World and Michael Jackson. It was stated that a seperate sub-section should be created to detail the changes between both editions of the book. There are no changes in content between the two editions. I know this because I have both. In summary, I disagree with the quick-fail and think that more time should have been given to address the actionable issues raised. Pyrrhus16 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since the article was waiting so long for review, I did not know if original editors were still ready to tackle issues, this is the main reason I did not put it "On Hold". I also judged it to be too far from the standard required to be revised within 7 days, the usual holding time. If it is possible to reverse the decision and put the article On Hold I would be happy to do that. I did not say the article breached a core pillar, and thus making it liable for "quick fail". The fixes made were merely incorporating some examples of poor writing I highlighted. I still feel the entire article needs to be copyedited by a third party.

However, I stand by, and will defend if asked, the other comments in the review. Though it could be put "On Hold" as the article stands now it fails several of the WP:WIAGA.

Would it satisfy you to return the article to hold status and try to resolve some of the problems?

Regards, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the issues I felt were actionable and reasonable. I would not like you to place the article on hold, as I feel we will not agree on what constitutes a good article. I would like to hear the input of other editors here. Pyrrhus16 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- ref #8 [1] is a dead link, can't find it at the Internet archive.
- Background section: doesn't appear to have any connection with the subject of this article, it is about another book, which could be mentioned in passing.
- Publication and reception: "Following the entertainer's death in June 2009, it was announced that the British company Transworld would be reissuing the book in July." needs updating to accord with statement made in lead (assuming that it was reissued.
- No other concerns. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've removed the dead link, removed the background section and integrated a bit of it into the publication section. I've also updated the Transworld bit. Pyrrhus16 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I guess as this is a community assessment we'll wait for User:Geometry guy, but as far as I am concerned this is good to go as GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. In terms of process, this was not a quick fail, as the reviewer left a complete review. Placing articles "on hold" is at the reviewer's discretion; if a reviewer believes substantial changes are necessary, a nomination can be failed without a hold.
- In this case, the article does need substantial work to make better use of the available source material. Although I agree with the nominator that the article mostly does not copy Campbell word-for-word, a quick comparison reveals that is is a very close paraphrase, with similar sentence structure, illustrative examples, and emphasis. Since the book has been reviewed by other authors, who also precis and quote content, such reliance is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is allowed to use the primary source in a precis! The primary source can also be used for simple facts of reader interest: how many pages is the book, how many pieces are there (I counted 46, not 20 – perhaps Campbell means c. 20 poems and c. 20 essays), how is it formatted?
- The comparison also raises some citation issues: Campbell does not mention that Ryan White had HIV/AIDS, so this needs another source; also Campbell should be cited for the sentence "In fact, this was incorrect as some of them had been featured previously..." and not for the sentence "The 100 photographs in Dancing the Dream were billed as being "previously unreleased"." – instead this should be attributed and cited to whoever billed it so (presumably, the publisher).
- Finally, "Lord Gnome's Literary Companion" is a compilation, by Francis Wheen, of anonymous reviews in Private Eye magazine. The review comments should not be attributed to him. Geometry guy 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I've took a stab at rewording some of the sections, to make it less similar to the Campbell book. I've added notes on the amount of pages and on the number of written pieces in the book. The emphasis on the illustrative example has been removed, and it is now integrated with the text. I have added a cite for Ryan White's illness and death. In regard to the last point made, I have reworded the article to reflect the authorship of the review in Lord Gnome's Literary Companion. Pyrrhus16 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Is there a consensus then that my review was an appropriate one? I did not breach any GAR policies. All of the points I raised during the review have been discussed here and found to be actionable and reasonable. The reassessment should be closed and the article re-nominated at GAN. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the primary purpose of community GAR to approve or disapprove of a review. Instead, GAR aims to assess whether an article meets the GA criteria or not. In this case, some of the concerns in your review about the GA criteria have been accepted, and I hope you feel as a consequence that you did no wrong. The reassessment will remain open for a few days, because the article has changed, and it is possible that it now meets the GA criteria: any uninvolved editor may argue that case here. If no such case is forthcoming, the reassessment will be closed, without listing the article, to allow it to be renominated and receive a fresh review. Geometry guy 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had not meant to sound confrontational. I do not feel in the wrong, in fact vindicated. I had only asked because I feel GA reviewing is an important task not to be taken lightly. Of course everything we do on Wikipedia is to improve the quality of articles, but I had thought that this process was a quality check on the GA review. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]