Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Peterborough local elections/1
Peterborough local elections[edit]
- Result: No GAR action, but all parties support relisting the article at GAN, with the original reviewer placing the article on hold until concerns are addressed. Geometry guy 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough local elections#Good article nomination (3). Chrisieboy (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think that the article should have been put on hold as a worst case scenario rather than failed outright. The reviewer even said that he thought the necessary changes could be implemented in a day. This article was a GA nominee for over a month and I see no reason to kick it back so quickly. I think this was a mistake by an inexperienced editor acting in good faith, and I hope he keeps reviewing articles for GA. However, I don’t think that the political control section is a good example of the text not being neutral and I do not perceive any bias in that section. I recommend that this article be put on hold. To Chrisieboy: you may want to consider adding information on the mayor (role etc.) from here and here. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree. If the original reviewer would agree, the best solution is to put the article back in the nominations list, and place it on hold. Geometry guy 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. As the original reviewer, I would reluctantly support putting the article on the nomination list again, after all if you do not agree with my (re)view, let someone else review it. Λua∫Wise (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why since you said it wouldn't take long to implement the fixes. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think the diffs between GANs demonstrate a "reluctance to improve" the article and many of the earlier reviewer's comments have in fact been addressed. However, I do not agree with some of the objections that have been raised in this review.
In particular, (1) the statement Although the powers of the Mayor have diminished over time, the role has retained its importance is hardly controversial and the very next sentence is followed by a ref. which supports the whole paragraph. I do not think this is just cause to fail under criteria 2a. (2) A list of civil parishes is not "unnecessesary detail" in an article about local elections. Parish councils are elected; and (3) I cannot accept that "it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. Please consider rewriting the political control section." I have taken great care, in tone and use of language, to present the material in an encyclopedic manner here.
I believe the article meets the six criteria and therefore support it's listing; although I welcome the opportunity for discussion and resolution here. At a minimum I think it would have been only fair to have placed the nomination on hold. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment- I did not point to diffs, but actually to the fact the article has been on GAN for so long, and that based on a previous reviewer's experience (put it on hold for a week, but no one stepped forward to correct the problem(s) ), I thought it would be better to fail it, with the clear assumption that no one was looking after it... and yeah, apparently there were people looking after the article, proving my assumption was wrong. Anyway, how much the article has improved since its last GAN? Has anyone tried to address my concerns? and more importantly: Do you think it deserves GA status?? I think we should answer these questions before we point fingers at the "inexperienced editor".
Second, (1) I still think this important phrase needs sourcing, so that you do not get people on your back demanding its removal, it is clearly a POV, do not you agree? (2) A list of perishes could be put in a table perhaps (I NEVER said it was an unnecessary detail, but rather shortening it and making it more relevant) to make it neater, or might I dare saying putting it in a different article with a link (if there is no article already). (3) You did a great job there, but here is my concern :
Cllr. Abdul Razaq (Central)...... Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Business Improvement.
That paragraph might need a bit of work there. Also, other point which I have mentioned in the review:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; Fail, The article should provide a broader historical background and relate more to the public and local sentiment
Kind regards; Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question. Auawise, are you willing to put the article back on hold if Chrisieboy undertakes to work on the article over the next few days, fixing issues that you raise? Geometry guy 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Auawise's remarks, clearly I do think the article deserves GA status, as I have already said. I think the diffs show considerable improvement and many of the previous reviewer's comments have indeed been taken on board. I do not agree that the phrase regarding the mayor's role is expressing a point of view in any way whatsoever and I do not think that the section Political Control needs rewriting in the way that has been suggested. I also feel that the section Local Government gives the "broad historical background" that the reviewer finds lacking. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Answer- I have nothing against the article or the contributer(s) but respect, having said that, the answer to your question is "yes", I mean, why would you assume that I will do anything to stop it from being a GA? This is not true! you know what? Just leave it the same way I found it and I will list it as a GA right now (of course if you agree)!! Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I would not be happy simply to list this as a GA, which is why I asked the question. This article is close to GA, but there are issues, especially with the broadness criterion to stay focused on the topic. Reading it, I actually wonder if this article needs to be renamed to something like Peterborough local government or Peterborough local politics, since it it doesn't stay focused on the electoral process.
- On the other hand, it would be a pity simply to return it to GAN, given the long delays that are likely. This is why I suggested that it be put on hold by Auawise, with problems being addressed by Chrisieboy and others. However, if Chrisieboy thinks it should already be a pass and is therefore reluctant to fix the article, then my recommendation will be instead to endorse the fail and suggest renomination at GAN. Geometry guy 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That would be my preferred option if others are in agreement. I am willing to have some dialogue and to try to reach a consensus though. It is clear to me that Auawise has acted in good faith. I am not suggesting this is suitable for FAC, but it is essentially a good article. Given the dynamic nature of this project and the subject-matter it will continue to evolve even if promoted. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, we seem to have reached an agreement. If Chrisieboy gives us his word that he would improve the article, then I think we should take his word and make the article a GA right now, and skip the on hold period. If you agree Geometry guy and Nev1, I would urge Chrisieboy to relist the article and I will pass it. Regards Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please reread my comment above: I am not in favour of skipping the hold. However, if the article is renominated, then this is no longer a matter for GAR, and I will archive this discussion. Geometry guy 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)