Talk:Krista Branch/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 18:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional NO.~~ AMENDED FINAL: FAIL This is a pretty good article in terms of verifiability and the citations offered (mostly newspaper coverage and christian media). The writing does need to be cleaned up as it just seems to feel like a run-on recitation. It needs to connect better, needs a smoother flow, concision and clarity. I think the introduction covers information in detail that should be made more concise and the detail put in the life section below. The politics section should be renamed "political activism" or something along those lines and added as a level 3 subsection in a larger "Life section". I think the sections on career and personal life and politics should be a bit better organized in one section with a level 2 header "Life" with these current sections turned into level 3 header subsections. I'd like to see the bio information fit into this outline (or something along these lines):

1 Life

1.1 Early life,

1.2 Music career

1.3 Political activism

1.4 personal life).

I would refer you to the Biography Wikiproject for their guidelines regarding format/organization. Accordingly, I give this a provisional no vote and reserve my final vote up or down until I see how these issues are addressed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the general organization issues you raise are a consideration for good article status or even featured status. On the other points it would be nice to have more specifics. Not sure how to address all your concerns based on what you have said.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to take a second look to be more precise in my comments...a gamble that didn't pay off. Then I would point you to WP:WIAGA and direct you ask yourself whether you meet the criteria. I think you can make this a good article, but it's not there yet. As far as quickfails, I don't see absolutely glaring, but IMHO, I would be tempted put the {{cleanup}} tag because of the writing style is wanting...it lacks concision and flow. The chronology of the narrative jumps around a bit inconsistently. This interferes with readability and reader interest. Criteria #1 is "a good article is well written. Is this bad writing? No, not that bad. Is it good writing? Eh, it should be improved before we call it good and well written. In publishing, they read a few sentences to decide if a manuscript is worth reading more of. It was tedious to get past the lead because the article doesn't flow. Sure, flow and quality are subjective but if an average, reasonable person says he had trouble keeping his attention through the article because of less than good writing (but cites Heidegger on other articles), it usually is a problem with the writing because the reader is more than patient. As it stands now, I think it's hovering on the high end of C-class, low end of B-class. If you want to see how a good biography article is (not necessarily those that are GA, but something that would be GA-eligible), check the guidelines of WikiProject Biography at WP:BIOG, then check out WP:MOSBIO for the Manual of Style for biographies. Considering this, the opening paragraph doesn't conform with the MOS (for starters, no dates). Criteria #3b - the article is written in run-ons and lacks flow, it lacks summary style. As for the organization issues, they go right to the heart of the MOS on Layout WP:LAYOUT (per criteria #1b, then one of the first pieces of advice given at WP:RGA) and WP:BIO's guidelines. These are typically considered in raising any article to GA, FA, or even A-class. FINAL VOTE: (amended) Criteria #1a - fail. Criteria #1b - fail. Criteria #3b - fail. Quickfail #3 - fail. should have a cleanup tag. Criteria #6 - semi-fail. Images is plural and implies need for several images, this article has but one.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally (but this doesn't go into my assessment), I wonder whether she is actually really notable per WP:NOTE and WP:BAND. Anyone can make a single or press a CD today, anyone can be a passing fad in the 15-seconds of fame ("pick me, pick me!") world. Her claim to fame was getting on American Idol and she didn't even really "appear" in an episode. Cutting-room floor. She's a minor entertainer with the Tea Party (while I support their efforts and have gone to their events, some of the "talent" they bring out is just whatever local bar band, organizer's cousin's daughter who can sing, or a town day talent show winner they can scrap together and not professional calibre), Glenn Beck is marginalized he's two steps away from Lyndon LaRouche and John Birch society honorary membership, one appearance on Bill O'Reilly doesn't notability make (he has also included 3-years olds with YouTube videos and funny looking cats). My impression is that she's barely marginally notable...--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are new, so I will just let this slide, but you are not being very cordial and your fail rationale is severely flawed. Check here for examples of things you should not be doing in a review.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new. You are mistaken in this assumption (strike 1). Just because I am editing under the new screenname after coming back from a multi-year hiatus and having closed my account five years before (after 5-6 years of editing), I am not new to the game. It is likely that you are emotionally attached to the article and thus you can only see my comparatively unattached objectivity as being somewhat "not very cordial." You are mistaken in your assumption (strike 2). And I'm familiar with what GA is not. Unfortunately, that page is always disingenuously cited by editors who have to face the shortcomings of their GA candidate being pointed out. Your article is flawed, but that's not the problem. Ask for a review and then get miffed because it's not favorable and points out the flaws. Then use Alinskyesque tactics to attack the reviewer but not use those efforts to fix the GA candidate. (strike 3). You can quote WP:WGN all you want, but the article still fails based on my reading of the GA criteria (the only grounds for this objective assessment). No matter how you slice it, if it isn't well written, you can only call it "well written" until someone reads it. Still fail. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with people pointing out flaws when they do it in a manner that is helpful and respectful. Referring to my request for specifics so I can improve the article as "a gamble that didn't pay off" is not exactly a respectful or helpful tone to take and ranting about Glenn Beck while suggesting the article should be deleted does not makes things better. Would you be willing to request a second opinion on this review?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any constructive criticism is meant to be helpful and respectful. Helpful and respectful doesn't mean "agrees with me" or "pats me on the back for something less than adequate." You asked for an opinion and I said there was room for improvement. Instead, you'd rather bite my head off saying that my constructive criticism was mean-spirited and somehow not worthy of consideration just because I had the audacity to call out its shortcomings and say "no, not until improved." The "gamble that didn't pay off" is simply that you asked me to take a second look and I found more to dislike the second time around. Sometimes getting a second opinion when the first diagnosis leaves you skeptical could result in a doctor diagnosing something worse. That's the gamble. Sure, the comment might have been a bit snide in hindsight. At the time, I thought it rather Falstaffian. As for Glenn Beck, I actually used to like listening to him--and agreed with most of his opinions. Then my local radio station got rid of him. When I heard him again, he had left planet reasonable--and I don't put much stock in his endorsement of things anymore. Ironic that you accuse me of "ranting" about someone who rants for a living. My suggestion did not mention "deletion", it just mentioned that the subject of the article barely meets the notability requirement. I'm not a wikipedia deletionist by any means. The entire purpose of GA is opinions and concensus. Get as many as you like. If you wanted help, you shouldn't be reactionary and defensive when the review isn't what you expected. The purpose of wikipedia isn't to pat you on the head and make you feel good just because you showed up...it's about improving the encyclopedia's ability to get knowledge disseminated by making good articles. This isn't Lake Wobegon where everyone's kids are above-average. Not everyone gets a trophy. I still think this article is low-B/high-C class. If you don't want to improve it, don't expect a better grade.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want more specifics, compare your article here with my work in progress at Angelus Silesius and you would know what I'd expect (as far as layout, organization, writing) in order to give Krista Branch a pass.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged sections per above discussion (practicing what I preach). Now, needs a good c/e and tightening of the writing. If I did any significant revision, though, I might not be able to vote.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it is worth, I preferred the layout better in this version. The whole article is a biography, so I don't see the need to have a section heading saying that. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How then would you propose separating the lede from the body? People who contribute to biography articles should (at a reasonable minimum) read the MOS guidelines and then see how other biographies are organized as examples. Aside from those above, take a look at WP:WPMAG and think about changing your opinion. Does anyone read the policy and guideline pages or do they just rush self-satisfied and confident into editing willy-nilly? --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question about the lead as the lead was already separated from the body in the prior version. If you look at some of the Music Biographies at the FA page you will see that there is no common setup when it comes to layout. The Wikiproject guideline you link even says "This is a guide only and editors are free to organise articles differently." In general it is best to use the layout that best fits the article rather than be tied to any predefined headers. AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, it looks to me like my previous layout was more consistent with the guideline than your layout. The details in the personal life section, save for the move to Nashville, all preceded her entry in American Idol, which I think would be the definitive starting point for her career. Nowhere in that guideline do I see any mention of a "life" section encompassing her career and politics. Also, it should be noted that the GACR explicitly limits itself to only a few style guidelines and this is not one of them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of organization enables the problems with writing and flow and is part of the criteria for being "well written." MOS exists for a reason. Guideline or not, it makes better articles than this. Considering keeping with the MOS is embodied in the GACR guidelines, I'll keep this at a fail. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews aren't for imposing personal stylistic preferences. Quite a few Featured Articles, such as the one on Barack Obama, do not have this particular layout and have been reviewed and kept multiple times even up to last month. The MOS is a guideline and this specific layout style of grouping all details about early life, career, and personal life in a single encompassing section is not even mentioned there. I find your insistence on this as a basis for failing the article to be a bit peculiar. I personally think it makes the table of contents look a bit too bulky in one area and too slim elsewhere, but it is a matter of preference and not a determining factor in a GA review. Additionally, cleanup tags are not for trifling issues like this and another editor had already indicated that there is no good reason to have such a tag on this article. Please remove it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone has good points. I actually prefer TDAs outline. On the other hand I would like to see more images. But then I'm not reviewing the article. This appears to be a good faith difference of opinion and a just a tad of personality conflict thrown in. Thus I have boldly flagged the article for 2ndopinion. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinions only really work if initiated by the reviewer, as in the end it is up to them whether to list the article or not. My suggestion would be for the Colonel to fail the article and TDA to either renominate it or to request a WP:GAR on it. From my experience at GAR I would recommend renominating as GAR tends to struggle with promoting failed articles and in most cases simply recommends renomination. No matter what, this review will be archived and most reviewers will read it before conducting their own review. By the way, Good articles are not required to have images. In fact it is better to have no images than unconvincing non-free ones. AIRcorn (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to a second opinion...where would you recommend I seek it? I'd rather see the article improved no matter where the opinion comes from. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed 25JUL12[edit]

I added the FailedGA template on 25 July 2012. Nominator, The Devil's Advocate (1) did not address issues regarding compliance with GA criteria and MOS guidelines pointed out by reviewer; (2) did not seek second opinion that he requested despite my mentioning that reviewer was not averse to such an action. I recommend to the nominator to resolve the outstanding issues indicated above, to copyedit and revise the article, tighten its prose, abide by MOS guidelines, and then to renominate the article. I will be glad to revise my assessment and support a nomination when (and only when) issues are addressed to the satisfaction of GA criteria and MOS compliance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination 26JUL12 by Devil's Advocate[edit]

TO: THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. You probably shouldn't renominate an article for GA if you didn't make any attempt to resolve outstanding issues that led to it being failed the day before. Just saying. Your conduct being reported for review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]