Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John J. Millner/1

John J. Millner edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: no action taken This article was nominated for re-assessement due lack of broad coverage. Having examined the article in its present state it does appear curious that no information about the first 22 years or so of the subject's life can be introduced. This especially in the light of his subsequent political career. It would be surprising if election addresses, local news coverage of elections or official senate or HoR biographies contained no useful information. Thus I believe that the article should be reamin un-listed. It can be renominated at WP:GAN when expanded. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My GAN for this article was failed, but I disagree with the reviewer on whether this article meets criterion 3. (Criterion 3 requires that the article to be "broad in its coverage".)

The reviewer, PrairieKid, felt that the article was missing important information, but I contend that there is very little (if any) information that can be added from available sources. Because John Millner is a relatively obscure politician, the shortness of the article is to be expected. Edge3 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

Have you tried to find encyclopedic content regarding any of the following:

Place of birth
Date of birth
Parental identities
Siblings
Where he was raised?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add Chief of police to his main infobox.
Can you do a separate police infobox like Jon_Burge#Police_career?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to do some of these things to satisfy WP:WIAGA (3).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I was unable to find additional content regarding his early life. I searched on both Google and ProQuest. I'll add Chief of Police to the main infobox right now, but I don't think that there is enough information to warrant a separate police infobox. We know that we was Chief of Police, but we don't know what other positions he has held in the Elmhurst Police Department. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I realize there are different camps on how to read this criterion, and it's always a tricky issue. Personally I don't think an article should be delisted/not listed because sources don't exist to cover certain aspects. Picking two random figures in Encyclopedia Britannica--Thaddeus Stevens and Neil Armstrong, their bios don't discuss parents/siblings/childhood or detailed personal life; I think it's okay that our article on Millner doesn't either. Place/year of birth are more disappointing omissions, but if those aren't available, they aren't available. (As an aside, an approximate year of birth can at least be deduced here by the fact that he was 51 in 2002--adding now.) I think the important thing is that the article covers the main aspects for which the subject is written about, and this article seems to meet that criterion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from reviewer: Howdy- I just wanted to further explain my thinking. Some articles simply can not be GAs. Beyond the fixable writing issues, the article can't be expanded to include everything necessary. While I do agree, that a definite place/date of birth is not important, I do feel that more about his early life, upbringing, political views (beyond criminal justice) need to be included. This article may be as good as it gets. I also would like to point out that I gave one week for improvements to be made, but they couldn't be. I don't want to sound defensive, but I do want to clarify and will answer any and all questions about my decision. I still commend Edge3 for all the work done to the article. PrairieKid (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. My comment above isn't a judgement on your specific GA review, just a different interpretation of that criterion. Sometimes I wonder if this just comes down what encyclopedias you're used to outside of Wikipedia. I grew up reading World Book and Encyclopedia Britannica, which rarely have early life material for any but the most towering figures of history; with that as my model, it's hard for me to get used to the idea that all aspects of a subject's life need to be covered for a biography, instead of just their notable actions (those, to me, are the "main aspects"). But I realize this is an idiosyncratic thing, and that other editors are entitled to different criteria... all part of the process. Even if we narrowly disagree on this one, I still appreciate your taking the time to review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see both points. I have no problem with the way the GA review was handled, PrarieKid. In fact, I appreciate that you put the GAN on hold for a week, but unfortunately that didn't help because this isn't the type of issue that could be solved in a week. I simply have a hard time finding any ways to expand the article beyond its current state, and I don't think that this disqualifies the article from ever becoming a GA. However, if the consensus rejects my view, then I will still remain satisfied, knowing that I've improved this article as much as I could. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.