Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album)/1

Comments by Tbhotch

First of all. I don't know the reason you decided a communuty GAR instead of simply GAN it once again (GAR itself discourages it: "it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it"). Secondly, I closed the nomination because a) you requested it, b) your persistent personal attacks and patronizing comments (which you continue repeating here), c) the persistent protection of original research with unsourced justifications. Now, as the big white box is not answering your questions above, here they are.

• "Tbhotch, imposed their personal criteria rather than the criteria outlined at WP:GA?". I didn't. I applied the GA criteria and it failed 2 points, incomplete (I'll explain it when I'm there) and the persistent justification in-article of your original thinking, as explained at GA1.
• "dismissing the fact that any further information about the album is out of the scope" I don't get this. According to you (I cite you) "[He was] just blindly guessing, hoping, imagining?... that there is more information out there on the album's reason for existing" ... "they just assumed it exists out there and the article should follow this form, conceptually, superficially", and from GA1 "If there is any more information relevant as 'background' to this album, it does not exist in the literature." By one side you say there is no more information about the album, not even offline. Did you open a Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request at anytime that verifies what you're saying? Later you say that even if such information existed "any further information about the album is out of the scope". You cannot exclude information by the mere assumtion it is "out of the scope".
• "I even provided an example in the form of Scott-Heron's AllMusic bio, its skimpiness, its factual errors". AllMusic is a questinable source, exactly for those reasons. Providing one source--a biography from AllMusic--to say (I cite from GA/1) "Scott-Heron's career has not been a deeply-covered topic" is not enough to justify "Scott-Heron's career ... not been a deeply-covered topic". In fact, Winter in America being a Good Article indicates the opposite.
• "The reviewer abused the "broad in its coverage" criteria [etc] Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." a) I don't have a personal criteria, b) From WP:GACN itself: "[This page] contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." c) I never asked for "information that is not known" I said "there are more than 16 sources out there".

• Further: "This is reinforced at the actual good-article criteria page: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles." Let me ask a question, why did you nominate at GAN and not at FAC. 1) You have 17 featured articles, so you know the process. 2) You continue saying the article is in good shape, why not nominating it there?

• "other articles that exist in the manner they prefer" while linked to WP:OTHERSTUFF, an essay for deletions is not relevant here. The over 1,000 Good Albums articles that have backgrounds, however, are more relevant to the discussion.
• "a link (the shah) redirecting to an associated article an association the reviewer did not give a concrete position on, but ultimately used to fail the article" -> In fact, I did it, several times: "So, the wikilink is original research." And in all your answers you continued justifying the link to Pahlavi. First you didn't know ("The reference could be to Pahlavi but also to the title of 'shah'"), later you implied that "dead" and "abolished" mean the same for Christgau, a living person ("which would have been 'dead' (abolished) by the time Christgau's review was published (March 1980)"). Later justified as "well, in Wikipedia that means that" instead of contacting Christgau to verify ("According to the Wikipedia article on Pahlavi: Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "The Shah")—in Christgau review he wrote it as "the shah", it doesn't necessarily mean the same. Also, wouldn't have more sense he was talking about track B3 "Shah MOT (The Shah Is Dead/Checkmate)", for me it would, however, I wouldn't decide it by myself.

• This is also related to the original research issue that was removed: saying that "Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever" is about the song "Shut Um Down". You went to say "Some intuitiveness is required (there's no other song on the album to touch nuclear power)". So, for you, reading the lyrics of 1980 and add my own interpreation to the article in order to square what Christgau ambiguously said is the "intuitiveness" you are talking about.

• "compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting" -> Ignoring that this is for delisting and not listing MOS:LINKQUOTE goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, covered by WP:GA? 1b
• "Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages" -> Apparently WP:MOS is "my favorite" WP:MOS and it should be excluded.
• "as they failed the nomination altogether" -> You asked me to close the nomination, what is surprising? Would you have liked a simpler "I fail the nomination", so you would have complained as "Mr. Reviewer closed the nomination giving no reasons".
• "to unleash a torrent of hostile, personalizing remarks," -> Let's get this started:

• Condescending (I read that at the moment you lead me there)
• Condescending (I read that at the moment you lead me there)
• ("Some intuitiveness is required") Condescending
• ("I did not create the redirect myself; you are free to redirect the shah elsewhere if you disagree") Wikipedia is build by consensus, not with what I think, which is ironic as you have a problem with what I think
• You didn't mention this at first, so the one wanting to be equally controvertial was you
• Being an admin is relevant?
• Despite you wanted it, you're somehow complaining it
• "Okay, reviewer. What do you want me to do" so I'm a torrent of hostile
• Did you bother to read (a source not present in the article), Mr. Reviewer? so I'm a torrent of hostile
• I agree with where it went. Do you have a problem with that? Honestly Dan? At that point there was nothing left to say. But hey, I'm a torrent of hostile
• Now moving to personal attacks
• "possibly misleading quotation" is not a misleading quotation.
• "is an irrelevant personal judgement" It isn't. We work for readers, not what you think should be excluded.
• "they had given no effort in going over the available source material on the topic themselves" -> My job as reviewer is to grade what you present me, not to do researches. If I as a reviewer don't see a complete Good article I can reject its nomination under those grounds. Apparently you read what I wrote at GA/1, however, you never attempted to refute this: "Santa Claus Lane was rejected 3 times from being a good article. What it lacked? A critical reception section. That nominator used the same excuse Dan tried to use here ("[I cannot include] information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources"). Of course you cannot invent sources, however, like, Santa Claus Lane, there is a particular scent of not wanting to do your job [...] The sources that were added to the current Critical response section didn't exist when it failed its GANs? No, in fact the sources are from 2004, What happened? The same that's happening here, an author that believes he's right because he doesn't want to do his job, and instead of fixing the issues, he wastes his time making personal attacks on the person who is not giving him his Green button."
• "album's reason for existing, which as I explained to them several times was: it exists because, like nearly any other album, it was recorded by a contracted recording artist and released by the artist's record label for profit" -> And how that happened? That is the background. You simply don't wake up one morning and say to yourself "I want to record a new album, with Jackson, name it 1980 and want it to be influenced on jazz-funk, disco and dance despite our main genres being soul and jazz. I also want to use an enormous synthesizer and record it (somewhere, as the article never says where it was recorded) with a bunch of random people I know or don't know (as the article never mentions if these people have previously collaborated—it does not even mention that Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson are not a duet or that this is their sixth collaboration, including Secrets, released 2 years prior, whose production [according to the sources present here] has a similar sound). Instead, you merely will say that most (if not all of these) cannot be verified despite the album was released 39 years ago.
• "Maybe this person was just having a bad day." This is called psychological projection. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Gzus. I take it back. This neurotic response tells me maybe you are having a bad life. Dan56 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)