Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Denard Robinson/1

Denard Robinson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not Listed This article is currently not stable due to the enormous amount of content added after each game this season, at least until after this season. There is also a related 3b concern due to the minutia that has been included in the article. Aaron north (T/C) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was failed at WP:GAC in violation of WP:WIAGA. The reviewer statesd that the article was failed because of WIAGA section 5 concerns. Section 5 reads as follows: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]", where note [4} reads "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

This article is not the subject of either an ongoing edit war or a content dispute. It is a constantly evolving article that changes due to good faith improvements. It is no different than articles of Presidential nominees that have passed at GAC during the 2007-08 Presidential race (John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Articles evolve most rapidly when the subject is in the public eye, like this subject is. That does not make them ineligible at GAC. The reviewer should have followed the instructions in the footnote and put this article on hold because it is evolving due to constructive editing. I request that this article be relisted at GAC with its original date priority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly a huge difference between listing an article where there is an event going on causing change (i.e. Clinton and McCain) and an article where 90% of his notability is still being played out over the past 4-5 months. After all, if you look at the article when it was nommed two months ago and now, it looks entirely different. Just that it's current is not the reason for failing, otherwise all those Michigan players could not be GAs, it's that the article keeps undergoing reconstruction, to the point that it is impossible to properly review the article for any prose/sourcing errors.

A more apt comparison would be if I nominated someone to GA status the same day that they were assassinated, and over the next month or so there were conflicting sources as to what happened. How is that article supposed to be reviewed properly? Besides, your co-nom has left a note more than once with the exact same concerns I just noted. Why would I put an article on hold for two months? That's stupid and not what the GA process is for. I maintain my stance that this article should remain off GAN, at a minimum, for the next couple weeks, ideally until Michigan plays its last game. If this is how actual concerns are treated, then I won't bother touching any more of your articles. I know the changes are in good faith. If it was perhaps a 1-2 sentence addition weekly, if that, I would let it go, but it's paragraphs of change each week, at a minimum, meaning it could have no issues one week, issues the next, none the next, etc. That's a stability problem no matter how you slice it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of a hold. I imagine that there might be a reason to put this on hold until after the major college football awards are announced in about 3 or 4 weeks. There will not be much news after that that reallly changes the article. Yes, he may set a record or two in a bowl game, but the reason for the chronicle of games is that he is a Heisman Trophy candidate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do Not List This article is not stable, and part of that is due to the extreme amount of unimportant detail that the editors are throwing into this article every week. An old, solid subject with a significant amount of background going through good-faith current event updates during a review is one thing. (say, McCain during the 2008 election) This article is experiencing a rapid rate of growth. This season isn't over yet, and we already have what looks like 2,000+ words on just his ten games in 2010. At the current rate, the size of this article could be expected to double or triple by the end of his college career, and this article will be significantly altered in just a couple months. I would add to this the closely-related thought that the article likely fails criteria 3b. The sheer size of the unimportant, perhaps irrelevant trivia and minutia on his weekly starts makes this huge (compared to the subject) article read like a news source rather than an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTNEWS Imagine several years from now, perhaps this subject plays all four years with 2-3 paragraphs after every one of his 30+ college games, he is drafted in the first round, and has a successful first couple years in the NFL. At that point, it would be even more clear that the enormous amount of college detail is too much. Aaron north (T/C) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)