Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! My name is weebiloobil ( talk), and I will be reviewing Alpha Phi Omega. I see this article has already been de-listed, so hopefully this won't happen again. Feel free to leave comments here or on my talk page. Good luck!
PS This review is being undertaken as part of the April backlog elimination drive. Why not review an article or two yourself? weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Before I start, I would like to present these:
Criterion 2 of the Good Article Criteria
"Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
(c) it contains no original research."
From WP:SELFPUB
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Now we've got that out of the way, we can begin.
The major problem I have with this article (there are a couple of minor bits below as well) is the self-referencing; a massive 83% (35/42) of the references are directly affiliated with the fraternity itself. Whilst some measure of self-referencing is expected in an article with as large a subject as this, I think a few more outside references might be in order. The paragraph Chapters is unreferenced - this contains statistics, which should be referenced (the same paragraph also contains a stray bracket). Finally, reference-wise, the link for reference 13 is no longer pointing to the right place.
As such, I'm placing this article on hold. There are only three quick things to sort out, but the biggest problem is the referencing. Therefore, the key aspect that will get this passed is discussion. I'm not expecting a load of references, just a discussion of how best to approach this.
WP:SELFPUB is ambiguous, so I will pass this article if there is consensus reached about how many third-party references there should be so the discussion here will influence my decision on how many independent references are required Subsequent edit made at 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC). Good luck, and I'll be back to comment in any discussions -
weebiloobil (
talk)
13:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The referencing issue is absolutely critical, and you may have under-estimated the extent to which the refs are, sometimes indirectly, actually not independent sources. As I commented at another fraternity / sorority review, I would query how likely the article would be to survive at AfD on notability grounds. I think this is a definite fail, particularly as there are other problems - really we do not need to know every year's "theme" for National Service Week, the addressed of offices, the organisation's various programs. Personally, i think the article is coming close to being adspam for the fraternity, but that's just my view. In any case, i think most material unable to be supported using independent third party reliable sources should be stripped out. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference for 13 and will try to use Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities for as much of the infobox type information as I can find. The other third party source that particularly springs to mind is Boy Scouts of America documentation.
In regards to WP:SELFPUB, one question that I have is a reference from the current organization website is superior to that of published magazines of the organizations which are 50-70 years old. Some of the references could be shifted from one to other.
I'm confused by the objection to co-ed. Co-ed is linked in the second paragraph.
The history does need to be compressed, the issue of the fraternity allowing women, while important, contains a great deal of unreferenced information.
Also, as a *radical* solution to some of these issues, would splitting the article into Alpha Phi Omega of the USA (left at Alpha Phi Omega and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines (combining the second with History of Alpha Phi Omega in the Philippines) and moved to Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) help with bringing this article which would only be about the American organization to GA? References for the Philippines have been more difficult to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to discuss here what should be kept under the National Service Week Themes. It think there are two separate issues here that have been brought up.
I'm going to have to agree with Naraht on this one; I think the list of NSW themes is very relevant to the topic, as it shows (a) the history of the National Service Week program and (b) the fact that it has covered a broad number of very relevant areas of service and not just focused on a single area. As for being referenced internally, I don't see a problem with that -- it's the best reference for this sort of thing. Sure, we could probably go back and dig up old newspaper articles (probably mostly from student newspapers) for each and every single topic by year. But in this case, the organization has provided this, and there's no reason not to trust it.
As for your comments about it being "unencyclopedic", I have to disagree. How do you define and "encyclopedia" and what kind of content do you think should be in one? Surely, this sort of thing would never appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica -- heck, they probably don't even have an article about Alpha Phi Omega. But then again, Britannica wouldn't cover individual episodes of Family Guy, either. But it seems to me that in the 21st century, Wikipedia has been completely redefining the term "encyclopedia", to the point where it's arguably now the #1 site people go to when they're looking for an encyclopedia. Some of the more obscure and odd articles on Wikipedia are what makes it unique, and I see these bits of trivia, properly organized and presented, as one of the strengths of the site. I certainly don't think that saying something is "unencyclopedic" is a good enough reason for deleting it. WTF? ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I added a bunch of external sources for the various service projects that are done, mostly from newspapers and other things found in the google news archives. I'm planning on deleting the list of all-male chapters since that is not referenced (and yes, I probably added it all those many years ago). What other areas do people want to see with more references added? And what areas do people think are appropriate to try to suppliment/replace with external references. I don't see that many paragraphs without some sort of references at this time other than ones where there is a short paragraph associated with a *much* larger article that is the main one for the section. Naraht ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This review will be closed tomorrow at approximately 2pm UTC. The edits made in the intervening time will influence the result - weebiloobil ( talk) 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, some figures:
57 total references
22 independent references
34 self-references
1 broken reference (35)
which makes the article 60.7% reliant on sources from Alpha Phi Omega itself.
Alas, I deem this too high to fulfil "not based primarily on such sources", and so, given the time allowed for improvements, I feel I have to fail this article.
Other issues include:
Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel this review has been conducted incorrectly, Good Article reassessment is the place to go. I hope to see this article at GA and FA very soon. weebiloobil ( talk) 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! My name is weebiloobil ( talk), and I will be reviewing Alpha Phi Omega. I see this article has already been de-listed, so hopefully this won't happen again. Feel free to leave comments here or on my talk page. Good luck!
PS This review is being undertaken as part of the April backlog elimination drive. Why not review an article or two yourself? weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Before I start, I would like to present these:
Criterion 2 of the Good Article Criteria
"Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
(c) it contains no original research."
From WP:SELFPUB
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Now we've got that out of the way, we can begin.
The major problem I have with this article (there are a couple of minor bits below as well) is the self-referencing; a massive 83% (35/42) of the references are directly affiliated with the fraternity itself. Whilst some measure of self-referencing is expected in an article with as large a subject as this, I think a few more outside references might be in order. The paragraph Chapters is unreferenced - this contains statistics, which should be referenced (the same paragraph also contains a stray bracket). Finally, reference-wise, the link for reference 13 is no longer pointing to the right place.
As such, I'm placing this article on hold. There are only three quick things to sort out, but the biggest problem is the referencing. Therefore, the key aspect that will get this passed is discussion. I'm not expecting a load of references, just a discussion of how best to approach this.
WP:SELFPUB is ambiguous, so I will pass this article if there is consensus reached about how many third-party references there should be so the discussion here will influence my decision on how many independent references are required Subsequent edit made at 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC). Good luck, and I'll be back to comment in any discussions -
weebiloobil (
talk)
13:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The referencing issue is absolutely critical, and you may have under-estimated the extent to which the refs are, sometimes indirectly, actually not independent sources. As I commented at another fraternity / sorority review, I would query how likely the article would be to survive at AfD on notability grounds. I think this is a definite fail, particularly as there are other problems - really we do not need to know every year's "theme" for National Service Week, the addressed of offices, the organisation's various programs. Personally, i think the article is coming close to being adspam for the fraternity, but that's just my view. In any case, i think most material unable to be supported using independent third party reliable sources should be stripped out. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference for 13 and will try to use Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities for as much of the infobox type information as I can find. The other third party source that particularly springs to mind is Boy Scouts of America documentation.
In regards to WP:SELFPUB, one question that I have is a reference from the current organization website is superior to that of published magazines of the organizations which are 50-70 years old. Some of the references could be shifted from one to other.
I'm confused by the objection to co-ed. Co-ed is linked in the second paragraph.
The history does need to be compressed, the issue of the fraternity allowing women, while important, contains a great deal of unreferenced information.
Also, as a *radical* solution to some of these issues, would splitting the article into Alpha Phi Omega of the USA (left at Alpha Phi Omega and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines (combining the second with History of Alpha Phi Omega in the Philippines) and moved to Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) help with bringing this article which would only be about the American organization to GA? References for the Philippines have been more difficult to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to discuss here what should be kept under the National Service Week Themes. It think there are two separate issues here that have been brought up.
I'm going to have to agree with Naraht on this one; I think the list of NSW themes is very relevant to the topic, as it shows (a) the history of the National Service Week program and (b) the fact that it has covered a broad number of very relevant areas of service and not just focused on a single area. As for being referenced internally, I don't see a problem with that -- it's the best reference for this sort of thing. Sure, we could probably go back and dig up old newspaper articles (probably mostly from student newspapers) for each and every single topic by year. But in this case, the organization has provided this, and there's no reason not to trust it.
As for your comments about it being "unencyclopedic", I have to disagree. How do you define and "encyclopedia" and what kind of content do you think should be in one? Surely, this sort of thing would never appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica -- heck, they probably don't even have an article about Alpha Phi Omega. But then again, Britannica wouldn't cover individual episodes of Family Guy, either. But it seems to me that in the 21st century, Wikipedia has been completely redefining the term "encyclopedia", to the point where it's arguably now the #1 site people go to when they're looking for an encyclopedia. Some of the more obscure and odd articles on Wikipedia are what makes it unique, and I see these bits of trivia, properly organized and presented, as one of the strengths of the site. I certainly don't think that saying something is "unencyclopedic" is a good enough reason for deleting it. WTF? ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I added a bunch of external sources for the various service projects that are done, mostly from newspapers and other things found in the google news archives. I'm planning on deleting the list of all-male chapters since that is not referenced (and yes, I probably added it all those many years ago). What other areas do people want to see with more references added? And what areas do people think are appropriate to try to suppliment/replace with external references. I don't see that many paragraphs without some sort of references at this time other than ones where there is a short paragraph associated with a *much* larger article that is the main one for the section. Naraht ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This review will be closed tomorrow at approximately 2pm UTC. The edits made in the intervening time will influence the result - weebiloobil ( talk) 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, some figures:
57 total references
22 independent references
34 self-references
1 broken reference (35)
which makes the article 60.7% reliant on sources from Alpha Phi Omega itself.
Alas, I deem this too high to fulfil "not based primarily on such sources", and so, given the time allowed for improvements, I feel I have to fail this article.
Other issues include:
Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel this review has been conducted incorrectly, Good Article reassessment is the place to go. I hope to see this article at GA and FA very soon. weebiloobil ( talk) 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)