User talk:Nintendofan885/news

Discontent Content Issue 5[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #5

Welcome, subscribers, to the fifth Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Isolar – 1976 Tour: A substantial musical event for one of the most influential albums of its era, but with a rather spindly, table-focused article (I also note no one seems to have given post-inflation numbers for any of the figures).
Occultism (Islam): "Major topic that's a literal stub because it's about something outside the comfort zone of the average editor" of the day. Esotericism in one of the world's major exoteric religions is, of course, something which can be written about extensively.
G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: Going meta for a moment...This is an interesting case, and it's a shame we discuss it only as a paragraph. It would be fascinating to read further on this topic.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Misophonia: A concept, symptom, or disorder -- no one's quite yet drawn the borderlands -- where people are unusually upset at noises such as chewing sounds. The idea may sound odd, but it does distress people with it and those around them. The subject is very popular, with Half Million Award-tier page views, but the readers are served by a rather weak article.
Sparks (band): This eccentric, creative band was a GA long ago, but delisted in 2010. Though undersourced, the article certainly has potential to return to its old status.
Han Xin: One of the great military leaders of ancient China is graced by a massively undersourced article. Several sections have none at all.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Wind: This FA is on a huge, important topic, but its star needs some polishing. FAR notice has been given for significant uncited passages. To quote the talk page, the article has good bones, and it can certainly be restored to modern FA status if anyone is able to work on it.
Jeopardy!: The article for perhaps one of the most famous game shows of all time is at GAR for citation issues. Most of the issues brought up can be fixed quite easily, such as locating page numbers.
French fries: Tasty, but needs more sauce. The GAR discusses unsourced sections and unreliable sourcing; I also notice some pretty blatant prose issues and a spindly lead.

Letter from the Editor

This issue's reader suggestion from Sennecaster:

Maasai people: The Vital 4 article for this major East African ethnic group was recently significantly reduced due to copyvio. It needs urgent work to restore cored-out content, but the references are still available in the article to simplify the process.

One topic I've been broadly thinking about lately is the concept of GA sweeps. There hasn't been one in well over a decade; discussion of a new one is traditionally stymied by the sheer number of GAs that would need sweeping, considering there are over ten times as many as there were at the last sweep. Nonetheless, there's no dispute that many GAs don't really count as 99.5th percentile articles, or even decent-quality articles (whether one's own personal reading of WIAGA is closer to the former or the latter, and how different those things are, is an exercise for the reader).

I've been brainstorming ideas, and I've been wondering if we can tackle the problem with limited-scope sweeps. One idea would be sweeping popular or vital articles -- those that get enough views to make up a significant proportion of the "GA experience" to readers. Another would be focusing on shorter GAs, which might trend towards a less in-depth treatment of the topic than could really justify the rating. There may very well be a path here to maintaining GA standards, and either of those would have the benefit that they might be more likely to encourage people to work on rather than simply delist articles -- popular topics with lots of interested parties willing to help, or smaller topics that don't seem like too big a challenge to pick up.
Vaticidalprophet 04:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Discontent Content Issue 6[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #6

Welcome, subscribers, to the sixth Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Floating match on card: This famous magic trick is a microstub with an empty section and no meaningful discussion of its methods or effects. Some useful information is available on the talk page.
Erotic horror: A significant literary (or, well...look, you know) genre with significant academic and critical coverage, which you wouldn't know from reading its three-sentence article.
Black ribbon: Currently in poor shape, with unnecessary lists attracting spurious examples, this article nonetheless has potential to cover a coherent topic on a sensitive subject.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Violin: This twice-candidate at GAN has good bones, but suffers from expanses of uncited content (and indeed expanses of "people slapping CN tags on literally every sentence"). Much of this information should be citable, and potential exists for this article to stand tall amongst other core music articles.
Art museum: Though this looks a little underrated as a soi-disant "Start", it's nonetheless an important cultural article with significant improvement potential. This was a former candidate for the Team-B-Vital campaign ran by members of the Wikimedia Discord to bring Vital Articles to B-class status, and while not selected, it has strong potential for anyone interested in working on it.
Grocery store: Daily life has always been one of Wikipedia's coverage gaps. Though this topic is something virtually anyone deals with on a regular basis, the article struggles with cleanup tags, sandwiching, and the weird fear of prose that drives people to put everything they can in a list. With hundreds of views a day, readers deserve an article with a stronger core.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

Slackers CDs and Games: This GA hasn't had significant content edits since 2008. As much of its content references then-recent controversies, it needs a good look for updating.
Potential superpowers: GA with a multiple issues template, with concerns of outdated information, lack of citations, and potential OR.
Alzheimer's disease: This major medical FA is at FAR due to outdated information, an unfortunately common scourge of medical articles over time. Such an important article needs people willing to get it in good shape.

Letter from the Editor

After my prior thoughts on GA sweeps and their viability, work is beginning to break down what parts of the backlog can be tackled. Planning is beginning at User:Vaticidalprophet/GA reform and its talk; feel free to give your opinion, participate in current GARs, and assess articles. The current plan is to look at GAs with outstanding cleanup tags as our first priority.

Sorry for the delay this time around -- I've been having A Month healthwise. I expect to maintain this at an approximately monthly schedule and will try not to let it slip further. I'm enthused by the work going on at GAR lately and hope to work something excellent out of it.
Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.

Discontent Content Issue 7[edit]

Discontent Content Issue #7

Welcome, subscribers, to the seventh Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

Exile: An unexpectedly poor article for a major form of historical punishment, and one of those few where anyone can agree the "In popular culture" section is far too sparse. Even a relatively minor improvement to reflect the historical and sociological literature could really improve this article's usability.
Scratching post: A major element of cat ownership (if you ever want to own furniture), this article lies right on the sub-start border and is supported by exactly one ref. Arguably, there may be few serious investigations of the subject :) Some information seems split between it and the related article cat tree, and they may be better off handled under a single more fleshed-out title.
Agnathia: A two-sentence stub on an unusual deformity (absence of part of the jaw). Even in its incredibly short length, the article manages to conflate two different things, the absence of the jaw entirely and the presence of missing sections. This article could become significantly more useful with even minor improvements any non-specialist editor could do, such as discussing causes (e.g. treatments for certain cancers) or finding more prevalence data.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

Firefox: An ex-FA, a Million Award candidate, and the best browser (don't @ me). This article has good bones, and could certainly be brought to a quality-assessed status. A problem noticeable in the ref section is the advancing age of many sources.
Cyclone Tracy: One of the biggest disasters in Australian history, Tracy notoriously levelled the whole city of Darwin over Christmas 1974, with people unable to evacuate due to the demands of the holiday season. This ex-FA is still a confronting look at the tragedy that forced the complete rebuild of the country's northernmost capital, but some work needs to be done to improve sourcing, particularly around the Aftermath section.
East Asian religions: A disappointingly sparse article on the religious history of over a fifth of the world's population. This was a GA once, prior to the 2009 sweeps, but has had little serious improvement in the past fourteen years.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

History of Singapore: A 2006 GA now at GAR, this highly important article draws close to a quarter million views a year. The GAR notes significant missing citations and dead links.
Dungeons & Dragons (album): This 2007 FA is now at FARC, the last stop before delisting. The talk page hashes out source reliability; the article may be closer to salvation than it looks, for someone who can get a hold of the contemporary zines.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series): The one that started it all! The talk page for this FA at FAR gives extensive and fully actionable notes on the article's issues, mostly prose-related. Serious improvements could be made by following the recommendations. It would be a shame to see the article delisted because of the original writer's lack of time to work on it.

Letter from the Editor

I LIVE.

Hi, guys. Great to see you. I felt like doing this again. Will I do more? Let's find out. I hope you're all well, you beautiful people.
Vaticidalprophet 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this newsletter because you opted into the Discontent Content mailing list. To opt out from future newsletters, go to Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list and remove your talk page.