This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Porcupine (Cheyenne) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Porcupine (Cheyenne) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 10, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Porcupine was the first
Native American to derail a train during the
Indian Wars? | ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Daily page views
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Spinningspark: I write this with the best good faith for this article. Really. From someone who has done hundreds of reviews of one type or another, and as someone who has had their work reviewed, I understand when an editor submits for review an article they believe meets all criteria...and the reviewers disagree. It can be a little daunting, to say the least. Everybody likes to believe their work was well done.
That said, you should know I spent many months in research to create Cherokee Commission, by no means my first study of the genre. However, it is that very research that makes me look askance at some of the Porcupine article.
Having grown up in the American southwest, Native American cultures of many tribes are as everyday to me as the air I breathe. I don't claim to be an expert, and leave that to the people who lived the history. But I do believe there is much to be corrected in this article. It's OK to say the DYK and GA reviews should not influence each other, but it would be smart to consider the totality of both when looking to why neither review is passing.
It's my feeling that this article could have been benefited from, and should have gone through, Peer Review before being submitted at either DYK or GA. This article has problems, different ones listed on each review. You can dig your heels in and say something is not criteria for one review or another, or you can take care of the issues. But in answer to what you may be thinking, I will not green light a GA pass on this.
@ Notecardforfree and BlueMoonset: I am pinging you both for any input you might have. Notecardforfree as the DYK reviewer, and BlueMoonset as an editor who tries to be a voice of good editing at both those projects. — Maile ( talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"[f]ix problems if you can"and to pursue
"copy-editing to improve grammar"whenever possible. That said, how do you plan to proceed with the DYK review? The DYK criteria require articles to conform to core policies before the nomination can be approved. Again, I think this article has incredible potential, and I hope you don't abandon your efforts to bring this article to GA status. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Maile, Spinningspark, Notecardforfree: Having been pinged, I do have a few thoughts to contribute.
First, I believe that Maile should close the review. It seems clear that Maile believes there are significant issues with the nomination, and that the review cannot prosper. It's also unfair to a new reviewer—assuming one could be found to take over rather than start fresh—to have to start work in the middle of strong disagreement. The initial nomination was made about three weeks ago, so the article is comparatively young in the GA space, and unlikely to suffer any more than the usual delay by having to be renominated. I would recommend that those issues agreed upon by both the original reviewer and the second opinion be addressed right away if the article is renominated; it will save time when the article is reviewed again, since the reviewer is sure to at least glance through any prior review.
Next, I think an examination of Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not would be useful. I was quite surprised the first time a GA was deleted because the topic was not notable, but discovered that notability is not a GA criterion. In this case, while it would be nice to have the article in American English given that it's an American topic, this is not a GA requirement (nor a DYK one), and should not be part of the judgment. If the article uses a mix of English variants, then it is an issue, but I've seen no mention that this might be the case. So long as the English is consistent, then WP:TIES is not relevant here; only the five MOS sections listed in the first set of criteria must be followed for GAs. There's no reason why the Guild of Copy Editors can't separately be asked to copyedit the article so that it is converted to American English, but it would be completely distinct from a GA matter.
The definition of broadness (criterion 3) is one of those that's the hardest to parse, and what should be included or not—and at what level of detail—can be an honest point of contention. Issues of balance and undue detail, straying from topic focus and losing the summary style, can all be issues. Ultimately, this can usually be negotiated by nominator and reviewer, though the reviewer does have the final opinion at least as regards to whether the result meets this GA criterion.
Neutral language isn't easy, but it is a GA (and DYK) requirement, so this issue will need addressing if the nominations in either place are to approved.
Finally, it is up to the original reviewer to weigh any requested second opinions (or volunteered ones) and decide how much to incorporate in further decisions. Sometimes the new opinion clarifies things in the reviewer's mind, even if in a way that differs from the opinion itself. I'm not going to second-guess either the reviewer or the person making the second opinion. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Any future reviewers are advised to review the previous two nominations to see why they were not successful. b uidh e 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
[lead] the reader to make the same presumption... we should present the facts according to reliable sources, NOT lead readers to a particular conclusion. b uidh e 03:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Reading now … --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Spinningspark:, this is a solid article. My comments are mostly related to language issues.
Thanks very much for reviewing this Jens. I'll do some work on it this weekend. Spinning Spark 16:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Porcupine (Cheyenne) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Porcupine (Cheyenne) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 10, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Porcupine was the first
Native American to derail a train during the
Indian Wars? | ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Daily page views
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Spinningspark: I write this with the best good faith for this article. Really. From someone who has done hundreds of reviews of one type or another, and as someone who has had their work reviewed, I understand when an editor submits for review an article they believe meets all criteria...and the reviewers disagree. It can be a little daunting, to say the least. Everybody likes to believe their work was well done.
That said, you should know I spent many months in research to create Cherokee Commission, by no means my first study of the genre. However, it is that very research that makes me look askance at some of the Porcupine article.
Having grown up in the American southwest, Native American cultures of many tribes are as everyday to me as the air I breathe. I don't claim to be an expert, and leave that to the people who lived the history. But I do believe there is much to be corrected in this article. It's OK to say the DYK and GA reviews should not influence each other, but it would be smart to consider the totality of both when looking to why neither review is passing.
It's my feeling that this article could have been benefited from, and should have gone through, Peer Review before being submitted at either DYK or GA. This article has problems, different ones listed on each review. You can dig your heels in and say something is not criteria for one review or another, or you can take care of the issues. But in answer to what you may be thinking, I will not green light a GA pass on this.
@ Notecardforfree and BlueMoonset: I am pinging you both for any input you might have. Notecardforfree as the DYK reviewer, and BlueMoonset as an editor who tries to be a voice of good editing at both those projects. — Maile ( talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"[f]ix problems if you can"and to pursue
"copy-editing to improve grammar"whenever possible. That said, how do you plan to proceed with the DYK review? The DYK criteria require articles to conform to core policies before the nomination can be approved. Again, I think this article has incredible potential, and I hope you don't abandon your efforts to bring this article to GA status. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Maile, Spinningspark, Notecardforfree: Having been pinged, I do have a few thoughts to contribute.
First, I believe that Maile should close the review. It seems clear that Maile believes there are significant issues with the nomination, and that the review cannot prosper. It's also unfair to a new reviewer—assuming one could be found to take over rather than start fresh—to have to start work in the middle of strong disagreement. The initial nomination was made about three weeks ago, so the article is comparatively young in the GA space, and unlikely to suffer any more than the usual delay by having to be renominated. I would recommend that those issues agreed upon by both the original reviewer and the second opinion be addressed right away if the article is renominated; it will save time when the article is reviewed again, since the reviewer is sure to at least glance through any prior review.
Next, I think an examination of Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not would be useful. I was quite surprised the first time a GA was deleted because the topic was not notable, but discovered that notability is not a GA criterion. In this case, while it would be nice to have the article in American English given that it's an American topic, this is not a GA requirement (nor a DYK one), and should not be part of the judgment. If the article uses a mix of English variants, then it is an issue, but I've seen no mention that this might be the case. So long as the English is consistent, then WP:TIES is not relevant here; only the five MOS sections listed in the first set of criteria must be followed for GAs. There's no reason why the Guild of Copy Editors can't separately be asked to copyedit the article so that it is converted to American English, but it would be completely distinct from a GA matter.
The definition of broadness (criterion 3) is one of those that's the hardest to parse, and what should be included or not—and at what level of detail—can be an honest point of contention. Issues of balance and undue detail, straying from topic focus and losing the summary style, can all be issues. Ultimately, this can usually be negotiated by nominator and reviewer, though the reviewer does have the final opinion at least as regards to whether the result meets this GA criterion.
Neutral language isn't easy, but it is a GA (and DYK) requirement, so this issue will need addressing if the nominations in either place are to approved.
Finally, it is up to the original reviewer to weigh any requested second opinions (or volunteered ones) and decide how much to incorporate in further decisions. Sometimes the new opinion clarifies things in the reviewer's mind, even if in a way that differs from the opinion itself. I'm not going to second-guess either the reviewer or the person making the second opinion. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Any future reviewers are advised to review the previous two nominations to see why they were not successful. b uidh e 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
[lead] the reader to make the same presumption... we should present the facts according to reliable sources, NOT lead readers to a particular conclusion. b uidh e 03:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Reading now … --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Spinningspark:, this is a solid article. My comments are mostly related to language issues.
Thanks very much for reviewing this Jens. I'll do some work on it this weekend. Spinning Spark 16:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)