Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Scotland edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No consensus/no action. The article is borderline. Reviewers raised concerns about the breadth of coverage, neutrality and the lead, but disagreed as to whether these concerns were sufficient to merit delisting. Editors are encouraged to heed these comments so that the article does not need to be brought to reassessment again. Geometry guy 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was opened as a community reassessment, but the nominator, Mais oui! has left a fairly complete review, along the lines of an individual reassessment. Please read the review by Mais oui!, but do not add to it. A discussion section is available to discuss the review. I have further added a section below to allow a community reassessment to continue. In this section, reviewers and other editors should state whether they believe the article should be kept or delisted, giving their reasoning based on the good article criteria. Please note that WikiProject criteria are not per se part of the good article criteria; they may, however, be used to inform reviewers' interpretation of the good article criteria. Geometry guy 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria on several points:[see the subsection below for the review by Mais Oui!]

Note: when exactly was Scotland promoted to GA status? Where is the original GA assessment page?
14 April 2006 - this version [1]. The GA assessment page is not recorded. Note: this info can be pulled down from the GA template on the article's talk page.Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The October 07 review involved an extensive house-keeping with the details on Talk:Scotland/Archive 15. Ben MacDui 10:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! So, is this actually Reassessment No. 2, not No. 1? --Mais oui! (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the last was 2 Oct 2007; plus two PR's. (See article history template on article talk page).Pyrotec (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mais oui! edit

Well-written? edit
"A good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world"

Fails in the first sentence - "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." Apart from the ugly grammar it should be noted that other country articles do not begin, eg:

  • Aruba is a country that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Aruba is a 33-kilometre (21 mi)-long island of the Lesser Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea, 27 km (17 mi) north of the Paraguaná Peninsula, Falcón State, Venezuela.)
  • Denmark is a state that is part of the European Union. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: The Kingdom of Denmark, commonly known as Denmark, is a country in the Scandinavian region of northern Europe.)
  • Hong Kong is a state that is part of the People's Republic of China. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a territory located on China's south coast on the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south.)

Note that the Scotland article comes under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like".

Until 20 December 2008 the long-standing lead sentence (and, as far as I can work out, the lead sentence when the article was promoted to WP:GA status - when was this? where is the assessment page?), which had the consensus of the editors who actually wrote the article, was:

  • Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean...

Surely this is more in line with the word (and the spirit) of WP:LEAD?

The original lead when the article was first awarded GA status (in April 2006; note: page does not appear to be recorded) was this:

  • Scotland is a nation in northwest Europe and a constituent country of the United Kingdom. The country occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, shares a land border to the south with England, and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to...

At the time it passed the first review of GA status in October 2007 the lead was this:

  • Scotland is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to...

The imposition of the new lead sentence was achieved on 20 December 2008 by a small group of Users who do not hide their agenda to promote the United Kingdom; and who are trying to portray England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as somehow having identical status within the Union, which is clearly and demonstrably contrary to the real-life complexity of the constitution of the UK. Eg. both England and Scotland are ancient nations, who can trace their origins deep back into the 1st millenium. The UK has only existed during the last 208 years (arguably 301 years). Whereas Northern Ireland was invented in a smoke-filled room or two approx 80 years ago.

It is a grave error of historiography to over-emphasise recent history over an overview of the entire history of a topic (see also WP:UNDUE).

WP:LEAD states clearly: "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." How on earth can one "establish context" on the Scotland article without mentioning the word 'Europe' in the lead sentence? Scotland is one of the oldest still-extant countries on the entire continent, and has both had a profound influence on the history of Europe, as well as being formed and shaped itself by wider events throughout the continent.

Things that "it is known for"?

The introduction also falls down on the second guideline: "add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for". No mention of golf, whisky, Scottish inventions and discoveries?

Factually accurate and verifiable? edit

Probably a pass here.

Broad in its coverage? edit

Probably a pass here.

Neutral? edit
  • "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias."

Fail. This article has been clearly manipulated in recent months in an effort to claim WP:UNDUE weight for Scotland's modern role as a constituent of the United Kingdom. This phase in the history of this article kicked off when a neutral, geographical map of Scotland's location within Europe was replaced by a political map, highlighting the United Kingdom.

Scotland's membership of the Union is no more important than the UK's membership of the EU is to that political entity, yet I note that the United Kingdom article does not begin:

Stable? edit

"it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute"

Crystal clear fail.

Note that the article is now permanently semi-protected due to ceaseless vandalism and edit warring over the years.

The only reason that it is "stable" is because it has been 'sat-upon' by a small group of editors who are only interested in promoting the UK in the lead sentence/map/infobox and other high visibility features. The actual editors who wrote the body of the article have been scared off.

It is "stable" because it is utterly stagnant. It cannot possibly be reviewed and improved upon because all knowledgeable Scottish editors have abandoned the article due to the WP:POINT campaigns of recent months.

Also, the History section keeps getting mucked about with for some reason.

Images? edit 
   (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Not checked yet.

--Mais oui! (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

References edit

Probably fails as GA's now require page numbers to be cited. Ben MacDui 10:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such requirement. Geometry guy 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of above comments edit

Mais Oui, just to make this clear. The above comments are your view on the articles GA status, not an independent reviewer? --Snowded TALK 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not a serious GA review. It seems to me to be a massive breach of WP:POINT over the consensus formed over the opening sentence - a protest from a minority view. There are several personal attacks on the editors who've worked well on the talk page of late (not a single edit war). Also, "Scottish" editors do not own this page as per above. Very poor show for a review. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, if this was a GAN and I was reviewing it, which I'm not, I'd be inclined to go for GA-status. Many of the book references do have page numbers, the others could be addressed by an On-hold. Sorry, but I'm inclined to to sympathise with Jza84's comment about "failing" it being a WP:POINT making exercise.Pyrotec (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone unfamiliar with article assessments, I'd like to know if Mais oui is allowed to start this Good article assessment. If he is, why is there a complaint that its a breach of WP:POINT. Doesn't everyone have to assume good faith? He does make some good points, and has as much right to make them as anyone. When an independent reviewer, or reviewers, take a look at the article (I presume this will happen) they will come to their own conclusions, so whether or not anyone thinks he is doing it to make a point the review will be neutral anyway. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the concerns of the editors above. Mais oui! is not detached enough from this article to make an independent review. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which begs the question, are there any editors who frequent the Scotland article detached enough? Titch Tucker (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who have made significant contributions to an article should not be doing GA reviews on that particular article. Looking at the last 1,000 edits made to the article Mais oui does not appear to fall into this category - I have not checked back any further. However, the review does not appear to be presented in an unbiased manner, it appears to be point-making; and it is incomplete.Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify and allay concerns. This is a community reassessment: Mais Oui! may not be independent enough to carry out an individual reassessment, but any editor can initiate a community reassessment and any editor may comment on a community reassessment. (For the intentions of Mais Oui!, see WT:GAR#Scotland.) The decision is then determined by an evaluation of the consensus of reviewing editors with reference to the current state of the article and the good article criteria. The decision is made by a reviewer (such as myself) who has not previously been involved with the article. Please comment in the section below to inform this decision! Geometry guy 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above "review" is stunning, clear bias and simply an attempt to undo consensus the reviewer disagrees with. Also what is the point in someone nominating an article for reassessment if they think it fails to meet a standard needed for Good Article? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I withdraw my previous comment after reading the clarification by Geometry above and seeing the WT:GAR#Scotland page. Although i am still pretty confused about all this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reassessment was started in a confusing way, and I have attempted to put it back on track. The review above may well be partisan, and influenced by a particular issue, but the reassessment should focus purely on assessing (and hopefully improving) the article against the good article criteria. Geometry guy 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment comments edit

  • Comment. Please continue the community reassessment here ("Keep" or "Delist", with reasoning). See WP:GAR for guidelines. Geometry guy 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come you get to review the GAR?Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this question. Anyone can comment on a community reassessment. Geometry guy 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to "The decision is made by a reviewer (such as myself) who has not previously been involved with the article."Pyrotec (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is like closing an AfD. Someone with some experience of handling GA reviews/reassessments (and not with a vested interest relating to the article) has to determine what the consensus of the reassessment is (if there is any): see the guidelines at WP:GAR. GAR is very short-staffed compared to AfD. If you want to help, please contribute to a few other community reassessments, not just this one. Geometry guy 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link and the explanation. I'm busy doing GA reviews at present, but I have a look at the WP:GAR process when I have some time. I have no experience of the AfD process.Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article was up for GAN I would probably assess it as a GA-class article. The so called assessment by User:Mais oui appears to be confined only to the WP:Lead; and some of the "review" is merely unverifiable assertions. There is no discussion or review of the main body of the article. It is a nonsense and a travesty of a GAR to seek to fail the article for (possibly valid) non-compliances in the WP:lead. The article as a whole is GA-compliant, or could readily be made so in a short period of time. Delist is a nonsense and a travesty of a GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no travesty: improvements during the course of the GAR can be taken into account, just as they are when a GAN is "on hold". Geometry guy 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delist. The lead does not currently summarise the article as well as it could and there appear to be some gaps in coverage (e.g. Scotland's international image and cultural exports). This reflects minor issues with the article as well as the lead.
Regarding the lead, I'm not referring to the first two sentences here, or the Europe issue raised above: GAR can't sort out content disputes, and it is difficult to get the balance right over what order to present the facts in the first two sentences. Instead I'm referring to the issue that the current lead has some nominal geography, a bit about Edinburgh and Glasgow, some history, and a bit about Scottish institutions, but not much more. There is very little on its geology, economy and culture.
Conversely, the sentence "Scottish waters consist of a large sector[13] of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union." contains an uncited and unelaborated claim, while the concluding sentences ("The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.[19] Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate.") are barely covered by the rest of the article.
The quote in reference [19] does not support the statement at all well, especially concerning culture, and the coverage of the debate over the constitutional future suffers from recentism. Apart from [19], I also found reference [37] to Devine somewhat unclear: I'm concerned here that one particular analysis is being cherry-picked, and then presented as fact. In such cases, I recommend qualifying (attributing) the source and/or finding complementary sources which express similar ideas.
However, I don't consider any of these issues major at the GA level. Geometry guy 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept your comments as justification for a keep / week keep and yes, the WP:Lead is not a representative summary of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to be able to strike the weak delist and replace it with keep. However, I'm also happy to be overruled by other reviewers who think that the issues I raise are spurious or too fussy. However, as you agree on the lead issue, this may be a signal to article editors that there's a bit of work to be done. A community reassessment usually lasts at least two weeks, so there is time. Geometry guy 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There are some issues with the lead in that the last paragraph goes too much into too much historical detail when a concise summary would be better, and some aspects of the country (such as the golf and whiskey that Mais mentions) are not covered - however, they are also not covered in the main body, and this is, after all, not a FA assessment. I don't see glaring omissions in this article. And the precise ordering of the words in the first paragraph are more to do with politics than a GA assessment. I think most readers would accept this as a fairly detailed and reliable article on a large topic, and that given the limitations of space, it covers most of the main issues rather well. SilkTork *YES! 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Geometry guy said the WP:LEAD is lacking more to WP:UNDUE weight of the last few sentences, not the first sentence. I also contend that this article needs more focus on the Scotland of today. The only thing that made me consider its delistment are the content disputes that editors cannot seam to get around, but this is a rather stable article so I don't see that as an issue. But minor problems aside, this is still a good article and should not be delisted. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, folks... The front page of GAR says "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not." The two above comments seem to be saying that the article should remain listed, but then go on to give examples of the article not meeting the good article criteria. Please forgive me for being a bit confused here. GA is not FA-lite: we don't assess articles against the FA-criteria and then let a few things slip. Instead we assess them against a lower standard, but just as carefully. Geometry guy 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not Confused. I even stated that the only thing that gave me a pause was content conflicts on the talk page, but like I said this is a rather stable article so I don't see that as an issue. SO lets take this point by point, Wikipedia:Good article criteria says a good article must be Well-written be Factually accurate and verifiable (it provides references to all sources of information... contain[ing] no original research) be Broad in its coverage be Neutral be Stable (it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute) and be Illustrated from what I can tell this article passes all of those criteria. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey relax a bit: I'm the confused one here. You skip over 1b: your previous comment suggests the article fails WP:LEAD, which is a GA requirement. Also, you link WP:UNDUE which suggests a failing of WP:NPOV, criterion 4. Finally "needs more focus" suggests a failing of criterion 3. You say it meets the criteria, but your comments seems to say "it nearly does, but not quite". Which is it? Geometry guy 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that text makes it hard to tell the emotions behind the statement but I was not angry or had any other emotion that would be negative, I just believed that I needed to be more precise after your points. Your comments gave it a weak delist so you are not 100% convinced, I also ended saying that the issues brought up were only minor problems. So while I do believe that the intro needs to be more refined and less weight given to some statements I still believe that its a good article and should not be delisted not warranting the articles delistment; so in reality it is "it nearly doesn't, but it still passed". Did that help :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC
    Yes, thanks. The "weak" in my "weak delist" means I think that any failures to meet the criteria could be easily fixed within the timescale of this GAR. If others think the article meets the GA criteria and should be listed right now, then we can close this discussion. Geometry guy 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my point. I feel there are some issues with the lead section, and some issues with coverage, but not strong enough to delist. I feel this is a decent article within GA criteria and is one that the general reader would find useful and agreeable to read. My feeling is that the main points raised by Mais are more to do with concerns outside the GA remit. SilkTork *YES! 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this process. In my opinion, the article apart from the WP:lead meets the requirement for GA. If this was a GAN I would either put it On hold for the lead to be fixed, or would fix it myself. By all means delist it if that is the only way to move forward. If someone is prepared to put it up for GAN, after you have delisted it, I'm prepared to review it. I've also suggested an alternative first sentence at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1.Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist because of serious WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV failures. The atmosphere on this article is utterly poisonous, with nearly every single long-standing editor (the people who actually wrote it) scared off the article. I have a good mind to remove every single one of my own contributions to this article. Removing all my own contribs alone would knock it right back to a low "B", borderline "C", grading. If we removed the contributions of all the long-standing Scottish editors who have abandonned the article it would be back to Stub or Start status. And yet these are the Users that have been labelled the "Scottish mafia" and the basis of "the rampant nationalist bias that exists in WP:SCOTLAND that keeps holding Scottish content back". So, the parent WikiProject of the Scotland article (a WikiProject I myself initiated) is "holding Scottish content back"? If it were not for Scottish Wikipedians the Scotland article would consist of one sentence (the very first one), a map of the UK, and a cat called Category:Parishes of England. We would expect Parisians to be more knowlegable than non-Parisians in regards to Paris-related topics; Canadians to be more knowledgable than non-Canadians in regards to Canada-related topics; and Scots to be more knowledgable than non-Scots in regards to Scotland-related topics; so why on earth should we be surprised that the Wikipedia articles about Paris, Canada or Scotland are largely written by people from those places? It is only natural. What is unacceptable is that Scots are being explicitly warned off editing the Scotland article, which we ourselves largely wrote. It'll never get anywhere near WP:FA status without us. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel better now? To claim Scottish editors are being "scared off" "warned off" the article is pathetic. This whole excerise has been because you were annoyed with the perfectly accurate change to the opening sentence. I am sorry but Scotland is part of the United Kingdom this is fact, why dont you go out onto the streets and start campaigning for the break up of the United Kingdom if thats what you really want rather than making silly claims BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst i still do not fully know all wikipedia rules im sure removing a large amount of content from articles with the explanation that (i wrote it and no longer support the article) would be seen as vandalism. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, why is there a conversation going on at both the project page and the discussion page? Should they not be brought together? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm thanks for pointing that out Titch, i didnt see there was a conversation on there aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I honestly don't know that all of this has much to do with a GA review, but whilst it is impetuous of Mais oui! to ascribe motives to other editors without providing evidence, a quick glance at the archives shows that there has been a very significant change in the content of the Talk:Scotland page. The shift occurs circa March 2008. Prior to that time the bulk of the discussion was largely undertaken by Wikipedians who professed to be Scots/members of WP:Scotland and concerned a fairly wide variety of subjects. After that time the discussion becomes increasingly focussed on the lead and infobox (especially the map) and dominated by editors who do not claim such an affiliation. This is a generalisation of course, but I believe the trend is clear. This does not mean the change is for the worse. However, it is likely to make future improvements in the article more challenging if a decreasing number of editors who are knowledgeable about the details of the subject matter (as opposed to the important but narrow question of Scotland's relationship with the UK) are available. There are no doubt many reasons why this has occurred.

As a recent contributor to the article I have no wish to pass an opinion as to its overall quality. Nonetheless, a specific feature of this "review" is the nature of the lead. The opening sentence (ex Gaelic and sound) is "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." As I have said elsewhere I don't believe this is an especially well-phrased opening sentence to an important article and most similar beginnings are a little more expansive. However, another feature of the sentence is its innate political position. A significant minority in Scotland do not (apparently) support the continuance of this union and it is evident that a majority ("the settled will") take the view that there are benefits to a measure of local empowerment. On the assumption of good faith, I presume this sentence is not intended as a calculated insult to these groups, but I suspect whilst it remains in place that it may be more difficult to redress the current imbalance in participation than otherwise might be the case. Ben MacDui 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your terms "calculated insult" (whether intentional or accidental) and "innate political position" (undoubtedly and demonstrably intentional) perfectly summarise what I have been trying to say about the WP:NPOV problem with the opening sentence. The opening sentence tries to portray Scotland merely as a modern political subdivision of the Yookay. Whereas the entirety of the remainder of the article describes the ancient and modern peculiarities of the Scottish nation. There is massive post-cognitive dissonance going on here. It is unsurprising, when one considers that one group of Wikipedians wrote the 1st sentence, whereas another group of Wikipedians wrote the rest of the article. I thought that WP:GAs had to be 'joined up' articles? --Mais oui! (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - personally I think the first sentence of the article should be changed - but because it sounds bad not because of neutrality concerns. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are usually described as constituent countries of the UK, not parts. Broadly speaking I think that the article still meets the good article criteria and any real concerns primarily rest with sourcing not neutrality or the lead. This review seems to be based on a user's problem with a consensus driven change in content. Getting a wider opinion through WP:3O or WP:RFC might be a better way to proceed. Guest9999 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus. I could write an essay or two on the disgraceful events of the last 10 months or so. But it should suffice to refer to:
Nuff said.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't think it matters with regard to this discussion whether there was or was not a consensus to make the change. GAR is not the correct forum to raise your objection to that decision. If you think changes were made to the article that shouldn't have been, start dispute resolution - there are many systems in place on Wikipedia via which this can be done - WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:MEDCAB or any of the other methods laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Guest9999 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Scotland/1&oldid=1138522832"