Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No action. The GAR neither endorsed the fail, nor concluded that it was inappropriate. Proposals to clarify WP:WIAGA or WP:RGA can be taken up on the corresponding talk page. Geometry guy 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team was failed for WP:WIAGA criteria # 5. It was deemed unstable. However, WP:WIAGA, which reads "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute," only involves dispute over editorial content.

It is common to extend this rational to an event that occurs over the course of a time period significantly shorter than a typical GA review backlog of three or four weeks. An event such as a 2008 World Series article where the event occurs so fast relative to the WP:GAN process that is often excluded by such criteria. In these cases it is felt that by the nature of the event its nominated content must be so different from its evaluated content that it is impossible to determine whether disagreements over editorial content have arisen. Events that unfold over the course of months are not excludable for this reason. Thus we have passed articles with {{Current election}} (such as Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain and when Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) passed (through a GAR much like this one) there were a total of five WP:GAs with {{Future building}}.

A well-concieved college basketball article in most cases begins sometime soon after Midnight Madness (basketball) in mid-October and continues until the end of the season in early April. It is possible for a college basketball article to begin to be encyclopedic a full year before the team plays (e.g., 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team) by reporting on blue chip verbal committments and letter of intent signings. Thus a college basketball team article should unfold over the course of at a minimum of five months and may unfold over the course of twenty or twenty-five months.

The article was failed for a content dispute that does not exist. There is no content dispute and it is quite easy to evaluate whether one exists at this slowly evolving article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: When I have asked for clarification on this issue in the past, I was told that the distinction is with articles about events with a definite endpoint (eg. presidential campaigns, band tours, etc.). Therefore, a few months ago, "John McCain" could have been a GA, but "John McCain 2008 presidential campaign" could not. Likewise, "Michigan Wolverines" is eligible for GA status, but an article about the future, like this one, is not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this at WP:WIAGA, if it is not it should be for clarity on the stability issue. If people do not feel this type of clarification should be added to the stability criterion, then I continue to object. Either we feel the state criteria does not convey the spirit of the law or we are misunderstanding the spirit of the law. We need some consensus on what WIAGA#5 shoud read like to evaluate this article. I have no problem with your comment. It may be for the good of the project to have such a rule, but it should be stated at WIAGA. Otherwise, my article should be passed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an important test case. I think one can identify three issues related to stability.
    1. Is this article currently unstable, i.e., changing in such a way that it does not represent good article quality?
    2. Is it practical to review this article now?
    3. Is their any point in assigning GA status to the article if change considerably in the near future?
Point 1 and some of 2 are largely what criterion 5 covers. However, WP:WIAGA links to reviewing good articles for more information, and the latter provides a more pragmatic perspective on point 2 and addresses issues related to point 3.
Concerning this article, I don't think there is a problem with point 1. Concerning point 2, here is the diff for the review period 22-29 November. Is this incremental improvement, or is too much new information being added to make a review practical? Supposing it is practical, we are left with point 3. If the article is basically GA quality now, can we assume in good faith that new information will lead to incremental improvement, secure in the knowledge that the article can be delisted if it deteriorates? Or do we say, no, this kind of article cannot be a GA yet because of its very nature? If so, what is the definition of "very nature"?
It is interesting to note that the FAs of Obama and McCain were featured on the main page at the very moment when, from the point of view of new information, they were maximally unstable: election day! However, they both remain articles of extremely high quality. Geometry guy 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the decision and the reasons for the quick-fail. The article is bound to change day-by-day, it is vastly incomplete and has a definite endpoint in the future, at which point the article will be in much more finished and polished state. The article is largely in a state of flux from now until the end of the season. While, the above comparisons of Obama and McCain have some similarities, at least both had large pasts previous to their day on the main page. But to me, listing this page now would be akin to listing a Super Bowl final article or NBA finals article one week prior to the game. It is obviously going to change hugely between now and the end of the season - the difference with Obama is that large parts of Obama will barely change.

As a result, I would say the article fails on criteria 3 and 5, and a combination there of. It is not broad in its coverage, because the very subject as well as the article is currently unfolding, and so its stability can also be questioned. I don't see why the article cannot be simply be nominated once the season is over and then a reviewer can review it based on the text before him/her, rather than text which might appear in the future. Peanut4 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you raised criterion 3 (broadness), because I think this is a much better way to address articles and issues like this. Geometry guy 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. we are now getting into some slick crossboarding where a lot of ideas are expressed and people agree, but it is not clear what they are agreeing to. Is there some agreement that either 3a or 3b is grounds for failing. In this case the reviewer made no such commentary. We are here to address 5. Of course, we should consider 3 if you can tell me whether you think the article is in violation of 3a or 3b, which I do not think it is excepting for not including WP:CRYSTALL content. Content-wise the article will continue to change incrementally since the team plays about twice a week. No disagreement here. The question is what part of WIAGA does this violate? If you want to fail it for a common perception that is not part of WIAGA, such as an event having a definite endpoint, then lets come to an agreement that events should have a definite endpoint to be viewed as high quality and fix WIAGA. A reasonably high quality article can be written that broadly addresses a possible elements without the article having a definite endpoint. The review essentially fails the article for not describing something that may or may not happen. If the team goes 6–12 in conference and is sitting home for the post season, there is nothing important to add to the article. The only important content additions could possibly occur next March.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to play devil's advocate. But when you nominated the article you said "unsure of eligibility". You were clearly unsure whether you should nominate it or not. What were the reasons for your apprehension at the time? Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Too lazy to look at WP:WIAGA without motivation to do so like I have now;
  2. Unsure whether people might pose random criteria like the "definite endpoint" rule that are no where to be found;
  3. unsure whether random arguments not listed at WIAGA carry weight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed you to Reviewing good articles, which is where this "random" argument comes from. You raise an interesting issue, but don't push it with rhetoric and wikilawyering. Geometry guy 09:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but my argument isn't "random". I fail to see how this can pass the "broadness" aspect of WP:WIAGA. Peanut4 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What aspects of the topic have not been covered?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't describe the full season. It's like reviewing a half-finished painting. I feel the article is premature. To be honest, I think the criteria ought to be changed to specify that such articles which (are ongoing and) have a definitive endpoint shouldn't be nominated until that endpoint is reached. Peanut4 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the criteria need to be changed. If there is not agreement that this change is appropriate, then your objection is not valid. What I am saying is that in terms of what has happened the article is broad. In terms of the future there is likely omited encyclopedic content. However, the season could be a dud with nothing more to report. Who knows? Either lets agree that the criteria need to be changed or say that the article is broad based on what has occurred. That is my point. You continue to complain about me not writing about things in the future that may or may not be encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is broad as regards what has happened. Just that the subject title itself refers to more than what has already happened, so the article is not broad in context to the title. Secondly, I can't see anywhere where I've complained about what you might write in the future. Simply, there will be more to write, yet a reviewer right now does not know what you will write. Peanut4 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) The fundamental concept behind editing on Wikipedia is consensus. Guidelines exist to reflect (and hence inform) consensus but do not determine it. The issue about titles is another good point. If the title were "2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team up to 2 Devember 2008" then the article would surely be broad (but probably not notable!). Is it worth adding a footnote to the broadness criterion at WP:WIAGA to reflect this issue? Geometry guy 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anything needs to be added at WP:WIAGA. Doesnt' the quick-fail criteria, namely item 5, already cover this? Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:BLP or ongoing business entity article will have more to write and the title need not reflect that fact. There is nothing in 5 that would cause this article to fail. The fact that more will occur does not mean that anything significant will need to be written. Like I said the team could lose a lot of games not make the tournament and then all that would need to be written is that the season took a turn for the worse when they lost 15 of their last 20 games. If all that were missing from a season article is a sentence explaining that they lost 15 of their last 20 games nothing significant is missing. We do not know if anything encyclopedic will occur during the rest of the season and it is presumptuous to assume so. The article is properly titled However, the issue is whether this article fails #5 according to the criteria. Articles that change from day to day for reasons other than content dispute are eligible for nomination under the current rules. If there is consensus that articles should be failed for reasons not in the rules the rules should be amended to refect this consensus. If there is no such consensus, the article should not be failed. The issue here is whether there is consensus to fail articles for foreseeble changes in content that are not disputed. Is there consensus for decisions of this sort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about quick-fail criteria number 5, not WP:WIAGA criteria number 5. Peanut4 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article were in a vacuum, standing alone, I'd be more than happy to pass it since I know you're a conscientious editor and will keep the article updated. But I'm afraid that could set a bad precedent for others to follow. In addition, I asked myself the question: "Does this represent some of Wikipedia's best work right now?" and the answer was no, simply because it hasn't been written yet. I know you'll have no problems getting it passed once the season is over -- heck, I'd love to be the one to review it when that comes to pass -- but I disagree with doing it now, before the subject of the article is developed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe that Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article #5 applies unless you consider the Wolverines season to be a rapidly unfolding current event. That criteria does give us guidance about the endpoint and may be intended for articles like this. However, their season is hardly a rapidly unfolding event. If I went five days without editing the article It would barely be considered deficient. A rapidly unfolding event is something like Presidential transition of Barack Obama, which has a daily newsconference of must include information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Rapidly unfolding means over a period of weeks-months, not only days. However, I really think it is the broadness which is the main problem. As JKBrooks85 puts it, the article has not been written yet! This impacts on other criteria: e.g., the article is very listy, because there isn't enough meat for overview, analysis, and good prose. Geometry guy 18:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      PS. I'm curious that 2007-08 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team does not exist (nor does any prior season). Why not? Surely it is quite important to this article how the team did last year, but without an article to refer to, it is hard to write about it in summary style.
I understand why you're not happy with the wording "rapidly unfolding". If that was in an article, it would be deleted as POV. To be honest, I don't know what rapidly unfolding is supposed to refer to. I would simply say "unfolding" would suffice, since the article is likely to change until the current event is over. Peanut4 (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is certain to change significantly even over the course of a typical hold period (1-2 weeks) would count as "rapidly" unfolding to me. The idea that it can be simply delisted if it doesn't get continuous upkeep would damage the quality of GAs in the longrun, because it simply doesn't happen. There are very few GAs that passed more than a year ago that shouldn't be tagged with something, and they are not unfolding events. It is not concievable that any unfolding event passing GA will get a prompt GAR once the event finishes. I agree with waiting until the seasons end.Yobmod (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can agree with that interpretation of rapidly unfolding. I still think WIAGA should have some relevant policy included though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/2008–09_Michigan_Wolverines_men%27s_basketball_team/1&oldid=258075369"