Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wildfire/1

Wildfire 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: kept The world view banner has been removed. Whilst the article could probably benefit from additions to broaden the global content, I think it meets the GA criteria sufficiently as it stands. Further contributions should be discussed on the article talk page, and good faith efforts for improvement should be welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There appears to be a content dispute. The world view template/banner appears to have been in place for 6 months. Szzuk (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, threse is discussion about world view open in the talk page. Dentren | ^Talk 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Dentren's 'globalize' complaint is solely that the images are from Europe and North America. IMO the tag is not appropriate ({{reqphoto}} would be appropriate) and is being used as a badge of shame, but even if the tendency of the images to come from countries where most of our editors live did warrant such a tag, since the GA image criterion is very weak, it is not a sufficient reason to de-list the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know on which grounds this badge of shame (compare this to WP systemic bias which is what this is about) accusation is made so we won't speak about that but about things we call all verify. What I see is that (as of May 28 [1]): 8 of 16 pictures deal with examples from the US. If we to this add pictures from Canada and Australia there are 10 out of 16 picrtures showing examples from English speaking countries if we then pictures from Euroe (Greece, Portugal and Estonia) we have that 13 of 16 picturtures deals with these countries. Now we exclude the global map and have that 13 of 15 pictures shows images from the Anglopnone world and Europe. Of the last two remaining pictures one is a "propagation model" not linked to any specific region and the other is map of wildfires in Africa. So we conclude that Africa, Asia and Latin america are very underrepresneted and US more than enought represented. In addition boreal/temperate conifer forests are overeppresented while tropical and subtropical forests fires are not shown at all. In this sence the article reflects very poorly that wildfire is world-wide phenomena. Futher more the Global fires during the year 2008 map give hints that if any region should be given more space than other it should be the tropical and subtropical regions. Dentren | ^Talk 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The systemic bias of English WP is obvious to anyone who ever thought about it. You're pointing the bias out over a very very trivial matter - request photo is the appropriate template, hence the globalize banner can only be seen as a badge of shame. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we aim to improve the article the best thing is to a template on the front of the page which is what most users actually see, request templates on talk pages are likely to be forgotten and sit there perhaps for years. A good selection of images is not trivial since it shows the readers where and how they occur and how they look. As the artcly looks know is seems unlikely that a Nigerian, Vietnamese or Paraguayan would see a wildfire picture he could relate to his country. Again, boreal forest wildfires are tremendouly overepresented.1 Dentren | ^Talk 16:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to "a good selection of images", but "a good selection of images" is not one of the six WP:Good article criteria. Good articles are not actually required to have any images, much less an ideally balanced selection of images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Good article criteria issue nr. 3 states that articles has to be broad in coverage, coverage by images as stated before very poor. In addition to this sections Effect of weather and Policy fails to give a broad coverage by putting special emphasis on the US and UK. Dentren | ^Talk 13:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than demanding somebody else fix the article have you considered fixing it yourself? You appear attached to this issue (for reasons I can't understand), but you want somebody else to fix your issue. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPA, there it says: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Dentren | ^Talk 07:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was offering a solution. It's unreasonable to expect a single uninterested editor to source and upload half a dozen images because it would take several hours labour. If several editors are required, as seems likely, then the template may be in place for years. Szzuk (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Broad in coverage" applies to the article as a whole, not the images in isolation. An article can be "broad in coverage" while containing zero images or just one (which must, by necessity, come from a single location). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. I'd be happy for this to close as Keep, with the proviso the banner is removed. As a side note (you appear experienced and neutral), how many banners would be acceptable for a good article? I've had GA's failed for just a few cites requested, so I'd be interested in your opinion. Szzuk (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banner remains. I will delist unless consensus for its removal emerges very soon. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the banner is entirely inappropriate, and that the article should not be de-listed merely because one editor is willing to edit war to keep a badge of shame on the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the banner has been removed. If edit-warring over this persists, I suggest pursuing this at the appropriate noticeboard, as consensus seems to have been reached. If it persists however, then the article will fail criterion #5 of WP:WIAGA. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2011 (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.