Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Girl in the Fireplace/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Girl in the Fireplace[edit]

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. While the review raised several issues, and the article did not meet the GA criteria at the time, the issues were fairly minor, and the article has been improved in the light of this and comments here. It now seems unreasonable to require it to be renominated and the consensus is to list it as a good article. Geometry guy 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was up at WP:GAN and failed by User:Auawise on the following conditions:

  • 2. Factually accurate?: Fail; The Plot section has no references at all
  • 6. Images?: Fail, one image only used with the infobox

I have never seen a plot section needing to be sourced, even in FAs of TV episodes- pick any one, eg. "Homer's Phobia". Secondly, seeing as images are routinely removed from tv episodes for being "too numerous", I hardly see how having one fair use image is "bad". David Fuchs (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List/overturn. David is entirely right. Plot summaries are sourceable to the episode itself (which isn't bad, primary sources are allowed), demonstrateable by the article for Homer's Phobia - the episode cites BBC's episode guide, but doesn't for the plot summary. Images are not required in episode GAs either, and are entirely supplemental. Will (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above. Those two conditions are never a problem for other episode GAs. I was particularly surprised with the "one image only" comment. — Edokter • Talk • 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that plot sections don't need references, as long as they are faithful to the episode and are written in a fairly matter-of-fact way, with no analysis, interpretation, or opinion. Also, one image is plenty here, as images will likely not be free. However, I just want to issue the usual reminder that a GAR checks an article against all of the criteria, not just issues raised by the original GAN reviewer and the nominator. So far I've spotted minor copyediting issues, and issues with the lead. For example, it would be worth adding a sentence on the production to the lead. Geometry guy 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The idea of failing a recent television programme article on the basis of too few image is a nonsence, and the antethisis of wikipedia's aim. The only really relevant images are copyrighted, there are free images of the original characters the programme was based on such as Madame de Pompadour, but I really dont see the need. A good WP article should have as few copyrighted images as possible, I even feel that the one left in this article is still excessive and fails WP:NFC#8. Attempting to meet WP:NFC 3(a) is something that should be rewarded not punished, failing the article on this basis will discourage editors from creatively meeting WP:NFC Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC criteria do not, and should not be considered when assessing and article for it's status, other then that NFCC criteria are met. Good/Featuerd Artices are assessed solely on their content, not to encourage/discourage use of the type of media. As long as fair use is permitted on Wikipedia, article are not checked for including fair use media. In fact, most featured articles include non-free media. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to the previous assessment is that part of the reason this article was rejected was lack of images. The assessor seemed to want images for the sake of having imgages, and there are very clear barriers to this article increasing it's images, ie the WP:NFC, and I do not feel this was taken into account. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - "The Plot section has no references at all" - reference is from the episode itself, and there are external links to check the plot. The number of Images is irrelevant - I don't recall seeing a criteria demanding images. StuartDD contributions 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it is unfair to quote only 2 of the criteria and leave my entire review, so here it is:
1. Well written?: Not completely; e.g. the first sentence does not even mention the number of the episode.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail; The Plot section has no references at all (please note that I recognize the difficulty of finding resources for this section)
3. Broad in coverage?: Questionable; e.g. The episode must relate more to other Doctor Who episodes.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail, one image only used with the infobox
Other criteria exist.
First, I admit that I have made a mistake with the image criteria. Second; How can a reader be sure of the plot without sourcing? I can go right now and start an article about an episode that it is entirely the work of my imagination, how can you be sure that it is true? I know and I have expressed my understanding of the difficultly of finding suitable resources, and you can see that in point number 2.This is an encyclopedia, and you can not be the source. The 're-nominator' took part of my review and made it sound as if it was bad judgment, Please see the entire review; he did not even bother to copy the link to the review or at least the criteria on which I, as a reviewer, failed this article. Regards. Λua∫Wise (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm leaning toward a recommendation to list as a GA. My only concern is over the image's fair use status. The article's editors have addressed concerns about the lead by adding information on production and reception. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not as up on Fiction GA criteria, so I'm not going with list, but failing an article because it only has one image is against the GA criteria. As I understand the GA criteria, an image is not required at all, it is desired, but it is not required.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I've redone bullets and indents above to make the discussion tidier and easier to follow - I hope no one minds. Geometry guy 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment, But no one failed it on the image criteria. Many other things were taken into consideration, it might fail criterion 6a and possibly 6b, but that was not the reason it was failed! Please before posting your comments here, go and read the article throughly. Thanks!. Λua∫Wise (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the disputed fair-use rationale for the image is the only clear-cut reason to have failed the article. The other reasons you've listed are either minor (such as episode number) or subjective (plot section has no references).
In retrospect, it may have been better to have placed the review on GA Hold rather than summarily failing the article. All of these issues may have been resolved by asking the editors to address these concerns. Just a suggestion - not a criticism. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Auawise has reviewed the article as requested, and performed a compotent job in doing so. There have been significant improvements in this article since the review, however the version of the article that was submitted for a GA review failed to meet the standard. I fail to see why the editors of this article cannot accept this review, treat it as the constructive feedback it was, and which has lead to the recent improvements in this article. If they feel the new version of this article meets the GA criteria, then there is nothing to stop them resubmitting it,but the review on the old version remains valid Fasach Nua (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that the old review remains valid - there is a clear consensus here that sources are not needed for the plot of episodes, which was one of the reasons given for failing the article. On the "significant improvements" - some, such as the putting of the episode number in the title, were as a direct result of the old review, but others are as a result of the reassessment procedure. Sometimes, GA re-assessors edit the articles boldly to help bring them up to speed on issues. Copyediting is one of the biggies, because it's hard for someone who has been constantly working on an article to see the grammar niggles. I see Geometry guy's done some copyediting, and that the lead has expanded a bit, (probably to help bring it in line with WP:LEAD) but that's not changed the bulk of the article - the changes are not significant enough to warrant renomination, I think. diff FA does not stand for "frozen article", neither should GAR. -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann is correct. GAR focuses on an article's current version. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article will be up to GA standards if the IFD discussion closes as Keep, which I suspect will happen within the next few days. Until then we shouldn't list the article. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This hasn't been a particularly tidy GAR, but the IFD is now closed as Keep, and the discussion above is mainly either neutral or in favour of listing the article. However, I think a moment's thought is worthwhile before using GAR to promote an article to GA (rather than e.g., closing with no action and suggesting renomination), so I would like to ask: are there any objections to listing this article as GA? If there are none in the next couple of days, then I am happy to close this discussion on that basis. Thanks - Geometry guy 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection here. — Edokter • Talk • 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps "restart" as stalled, as is done at WP:FAC? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This has been done in the past at GAR, but typically (I believe) to restart discussions where the article had substantially changed and comments were not only stalled but out of date, which isn't the case here. Geometry guy 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objections to listing the article now that the IFD has closed as Keep. Majoreditor (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Girl_in_the_Fireplace/1&oldid=1140134691"