Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shaylee Mansfield/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [1].
Shaylee Mansfield[edit]
- Notified: [2], talk page notice 2023-09-24
Review section[edit]
I first became aware of this article when it was TFA in September. I feel that it was not adequately scrutinised at FAC and that, had it been, it would not have been promoted. It's a nice article and of good GA quality, but lacks the finish of a featured article. My concerns are primarily 1b and c (comprehensive and well-researched) and secondarily 1b (neutrality). There are many major points missing from the article for it to be comprehensive—the subject's date of birth had to be removed because it was inadequately sourced; the article relies heavily on quotes for its bulk, many of which say little about the subject and without them the article is essentially a list of performances; the article contains next to no analysis of her roles; there's no background on the subject (eg the cause of her deafness, which is a big part of her notability); it contains nothing on her opinions on deafness/the deaf community/whether deafness is a disability (again, material I would expect in a biographical FA of someone notable for being a deaf actress). The sourcing is inadequate for a featured article; the bulk of the sources are gossipy entertainment websites which are not high quality reliable sources—the few high-quality sources there are are fairly thin and do not support the bulk of the article's content. Which brings me to neutrality—as I said on the talk page, because there is so little to say about the subject the article is entirely uncritical, almost hagiographical, because most of the sources boil down to "look at this cute little girl signing". I gave notice on 24 September and I had a discussion with the nominator, Pamzeis, who doesn't feel that any any significant improvements can be made. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In almost all of the sources, Mansfield or or those associated with her are quoted in the articles. This does not establish notability. And those that don't include commentary from the subject, such as The New York Times, do not even mention Mansfield's name. It seems the only sources establishing notability are TheWrap and Animation World Network regarding her role in Madagascar, but this only discusses one role and the articles are written in a somewhat promotional tone. CNET is cited twice but is not considered a high-quality source per WP:CNET. Like the nominator said, there is not one article cited that specifically discusses her career as a whole from an independent perspective. The article is unable to meet 1c—there just isn't enough "relevant literature" available. It may be a borderline deletion case. Heartfox (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means test the water, but I think the article would survive an AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion on the nomination itself, but the birth date was not removed because "it was inadequately sourced". That happened due to a strange reading of WP:RS ("people have been found not to publish accurate age data on personal webpages multiple times") even when the last line in WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPSELFPUB should have applied, and I didn't care enough to continue debating it. There's a related discussion on the article talk page. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you disagree but I think the fact that we can't even get a secondary source for something as fundamental as a date of birth proves my point on comprehensiveness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at this article before, given its complex status as the youngest BLP FA. I have questions about its FA status, but I agree with Ed that the reason given for the removal of the DOB was wrong. DOBs for minors are tricky, but I have qualms with the fact we're using a photo of her from several years ago while giving no context as to her actual age -- that's more problematic BLP-wise than any other element of the DOB discussion, imo. But yes, the specific reason why the DOB was removed is a misreading/misunderstanding of policy. Not commenting on the nomination itself at this time; it's a difficult one. Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you disagree but I think the fact that we can't even get a secondary source for something as fundamental as a date of birth proves my point on comprehensiveness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I share HJ's concerns. I remember being rather surprised when Mansfield's article popped up on TFA. The article seemed so short and lacking in detail that I was shocked it had passed FAC. The FAC review itself was also incredibly short, and frankly, looked more like a rubber-stamping process than an actual review - especially when compared with other more lengthy and critical FAC processes. Aside from the above-mentioned issues with 1b and 1c, I would also highlight 1e: this is an underage person in the early stages of her career, so the article is very liable to change significantly as new news comes up about her. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 1e does not apply here; it relates to edit wars and "day to day" changes-- not changes over time, that are good and expected on all articles (which does not mean I dismiss the other concerns about this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of old FAC discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive34. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. The definition of a featured article is that it "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work", which this does not. Considering the decades long discussions and concerns over "short" articles (only some of which are linked above), this article needed a strong consensus for promotion, which it did not have. It's crucial in a case like this that the process coordinators not (recuse) to take a side on undefined aspects of the criteria (like length), rather remain independent while community consensus forms. This short article was promoted on only three supports, none of which did more than review prose. Two supports were cursory prose reviews with no discussion of comprehensiveness (and one including a quid pro quo request), and the third support was an FA Coord recusal. It's not the Coord's job to push through marginal articles that the community hasn't more broadly supported, and in controversial cases, without broader feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this one is an interesting case. The concerns raised in the nomination statement are true; in usual circumstances, there should be a lot more on the subject and sources should be of higher reliability. But here at this FAR, we'd be judging on the basis of merits or demerits of this particular article. The FAC nominator, on their talk page, say regarding the sources: "coverage seems no different from what it was a year ago". I have not searched for other sources, but I trust FAC nominator's judgement. Regarding comprehensibility (1b), what can be done if nothing more if available. Are there any hqrs which this article does not include? 'Short' FAs are different that FAs on young people. This is a short FA, the shortest (to be precise). It too lacks exact dates and significant coverage, but by all means, it is an excellent article. Of-course we cannot "compare" articles (especially of a 'horse' and 'human'), but the point which I am trying to raise is that iff this is, in all practicality, a comprehensive account of the subject based on the available information, it shouldn't be delisted just because it lacks information which one would expect on an article of this nature. Let me know if I am missing something. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you brought up Miss Meyers, as Ealdgyth might add her thoughts on that as a short FA relative to this one. In the case of Miss Myers,
- A) she has been dead for over a century, and we know,
- B) that her notability as the the dam of the first AQHA Supreme Champion, Kid Meyers, is enduring, and
- C) there is not and will not likely ever be anything more to be written about her (comprehensive).
- We have the best possible article than can be written about her, but even at that, Ealdgyth stated once somewhere she wouldn't re-submit this article to FAC today-- that some articles by their nature are not examples of our best work, and should stop at the GA level. Further my point is not only on what basis it should be delisted (not an example of Wikipedia's best work, which is the overriding definition of an FA), but on what basis was it listed to begin with. Coords should not be recusing to push marginal or controversial (and short is still controversial) FAs up the line-- they should let the community decide, so the community can undecide here, too. If anyone has a hard time figuring out upon what to base that decision, WP:IAR is a thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be interested to hear Ealdgyth's thoughts. But my primary point still remains that, wouldn't delisting this set a precedent that any blp on a minor should not be a FA? Ofcourse there are many reason for a blp article on minor to not be a FA (and I agree with some of them), but no such reason, to the best of my understanding, fails FA criteria. We should not be referring to this article as "not comprehensive", if there is virtually no other source available to add anything. Like Miss Meyers, iff this article, in context with the available literature, is the most comprehensive it can be, I see no reason to delist it on the basis of comprehensibility. And let me repeat, Miss Meyers is an excellent article, and I agree with everything you assert for it. That is exactly what I tried to raise, 'short' FAs and FAs on 'young' people are fundamentally different issues; this one in an example of both. I have no opinion on coordinators rescuing to review, however, it is wrong to be assuming that the coordinator, in this case, rescued to review just to "push" this article for promotion. There are a lot many reasons any reviewer (whether coord or not) might be interested in reviewing an article (controversial or not), and assuming that the sole reason for their review was to push article indirectly sets a wrong narrative. All I am saying that without consulting that coordinator, we should not be making assumptions on their intentions. Furthermore, if, in your opinion, any article of this nature lies in the controversial territory, and needs a broad consensus to be listed FA, it also needs the same broad consensus to be delited on the basis of merits or demerits of this article. Any WP:IAR is never a strong reason for consensus. Best, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't listing this article FA to begin with set the precedent (that has continued ... which is that stalled FAs can be pushed up the line on scant review by recusing Coords)? Coords shouldn't recuse to support when there is controversy, and short articles are controversial. I haven't mentioned that the subject is a minor; I've mentioned this is not an example of our best work. When I promoted Miss Meyers, it had six supports from some of our best reviewers. That's a Coord/delegate judging consensus, not engaging in determining consensus by being one of only three supports, on quite marginal (mostly prose) review. As far as setting precedents, I'm concerned we're gong to see more of this down the road; months to get three supports has been the trend at FAC for some years now, rather than shutting down those that don't get support on a timely basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I really am not comparing this FAC with Miss Meyers one. I have never questioned any coordinators judgement, I trust them (in fact, I didn't even notice it was promoted by you until now). But since we are at it, I really am confused about a thing: "Coords shouldn't recuse to support when there is controversy", is this your opinion or a FAC instruction or a unwritten rule? And who is to decide if the subject is controversial? I see that you have issues with the functioning of the FAC system, and the unwritten "three support" promotion system. But that should not be a reason to argue for this article to be delisted. Humblest apologies for repeating it, but we here should really be discussing which FA criteria this article fails, and should be discussing how this article is "not comprehensive", given that there are virtually ho hqrs to add. Best, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are virtually no HQRS at all. Have a look at the sourcing and which sources support the bulk of the content. As far as comprehensiveness goes, the standard is "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", not just that it contains all the information that can be found, otherwise we'd have thousands of three-sentence FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'm not sure you're reading what's on the page. I haven't mentioned that the subject (Mansfield) is controversial. The long-standing controversy is over whether very short articles should be featured articles. There are ample reasons given already by HJ Mitchell for this to be delisted; my arguments merely augment them as to why this never should have been featured to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I really am not comparing this FAC with Miss Meyers one. I have never questioned any coordinators judgement, I trust them (in fact, I didn't even notice it was promoted by you until now). But since we are at it, I really am confused about a thing: "Coords shouldn't recuse to support when there is controversy", is this your opinion or a FAC instruction or a unwritten rule? And who is to decide if the subject is controversial? I see that you have issues with the functioning of the FAC system, and the unwritten "three support" promotion system. But that should not be a reason to argue for this article to be delisted. Humblest apologies for repeating it, but we here should really be discussing which FA criteria this article fails, and should be discussing how this article is "not comprehensive", given that there are virtually ho hqrs to add. Best, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't listing this article FA to begin with set the precedent (that has continued ... which is that stalled FAs can be pushed up the line on scant review by recusing Coords)? Coords shouldn't recuse to support when there is controversy, and short articles are controversial. I haven't mentioned that the subject is a minor; I've mentioned this is not an example of our best work. When I promoted Miss Meyers, it had six supports from some of our best reviewers. That's a Coord/delegate judging consensus, not engaging in determining consensus by being one of only three supports, on quite marginal (mostly prose) review. As far as setting precedents, I'm concerned we're gong to see more of this down the road; months to get three supports has been the trend at FAC for some years now, rather than shutting down those that don't get support on a timely basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be interested to hear Ealdgyth's thoughts. But my primary point still remains that, wouldn't delisting this set a precedent that any blp on a minor should not be a FA? Ofcourse there are many reason for a blp article on minor to not be a FA (and I agree with some of them), but no such reason, to the best of my understanding, fails FA criteria. We should not be referring to this article as "not comprehensive", if there is virtually no other source available to add anything. Like Miss Meyers, iff this article, in context with the available literature, is the most comprehensive it can be, I see no reason to delist it on the basis of comprehensibility. And let me repeat, Miss Meyers is an excellent article, and I agree with everything you assert for it. That is exactly what I tried to raise, 'short' FAs and FAs on 'young' people are fundamentally different issues; this one in an example of both. I have no opinion on coordinators rescuing to review, however, it is wrong to be assuming that the coordinator, in this case, rescued to review just to "push" this article for promotion. There are a lot many reasons any reviewer (whether coord or not) might be interested in reviewing an article (controversial or not), and assuming that the sole reason for their review was to push article indirectly sets a wrong narrative. All I am saying that without consulting that coordinator, we should not be making assumptions on their intentions. Furthermore, if, in your opinion, any article of this nature lies in the controversial territory, and needs a broad consensus to be listed FA, it also needs the same broad consensus to be delited on the basis of merits or demerits of this article. Any WP:IAR is never a strong reason for consensus. Best, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC per Sandy. The underlying FAC is an example of why it's for the best that I'm no longer an FAC coordinator. Hog Farm Talk 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, not an example of Wikipedia's best work, promoted on minimal support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per SandyGeorgia and Harry Mitchell comments in the FAR section above. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my nomination statement. Nothing has happened to convince me that the article is comprehensive and neutral or that the sourcing is adequate for a featured article. Not the nominator's fault but it shouldn't have slipped through the cracks at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.