Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Glencora Ralph/1

Glencora Ralph

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: I believe the broadness criterion is now just about met, assuming there is no information about Ralph's life after 2016. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a GAR 11 years ago. The article is not up to date and contains no information of her career post 2012. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason because that would fail the broadness aspect of a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore a whole decade of a person's life? Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually verify that anything noteworthy happened after where the article leaves off, though? It's not uncommon for sportspeople to return to private life and stay out of the public eye. "The team of seventeen players will be cut to thirteen before the team departs for the Olympic games,[23] with the announcement being made on 13 June." needs updated, but it's quite possible that she didn't make the list of 13 and then nothing noteworthy happened after that. That there's actually noteworthy information missing needs verified before taking to GAR. Hog Farm _Talk 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm she competed in the 2016 Olympics https://olympics.com/en/athletes/glencora-ralph so the article is missing her water polo career between 2012 and 2016. And is she still working as a dental therapist? If not, the article is factually incorrect. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt here. Commenting "Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies." on a bunch of GARs is pointless and unhelpful. The whole purpose of GAR is to fix articles so they don't need to be delisted, ideally. It's not an attack, it's flagging concerns about the article potentially not meeting the GA criteria to a wider audience, improving the chances the issues are rectified.

Not everyone has the time, expertise, or energy to fix every article they find. That doesn't mean they're forbidden from bringing articles to GAR. I'm not a fan of how a bunch of these athletes were brought here at the same time, but posting the same comment on a whole bunch of these is no better, quite frankly. If there are indeed major aspects of these athletes' careers in the decade since their promotion that are not discussed, that would be an issue for broadness. Nobody is arguing for FA standards here.

This article has an unresolved update tag from August 2017, and upon some digging I see Glencora Ralph was a member of the Australian team at Rio in 2016, which placed sixth [1] in water polo. The article completely neglecting this is absolutely a concern for comprehensiveness. Even more concerning, the prose also fails to give any attention to her participation in the 2012 Olympics competition, instead giving us the 11 years out of date sentence "The team of seventeen players will be cut to thirteen before the team departs for the Olympic games, with the announcement being made on 13 June.". Ralph did compete as part of the 2012 team which won bronze, according to the Olympics website. Aside from the infobox, there's zero mention of her involvement with the 2013 FINA World Aquatics Championships, either. There are obviously major gaps in this article's coverage. Quite frankly Hawkeye, I'd expect better from someone with such a track record of quality content than coming in and denying any issue exists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Trainsandotherthings:, you put it better than I can say it. Good articles are a mark of quality, and if for a BLP significant gaps in their career are missing, it doesn't deserve to be a GA, if we keep such GAs it devalues the concept of GA. It can lose the GA status and re-assessed once updated info is provided. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have the time, expertise, or energy to work on the articles, then they should not be bringing them to GAR, especially masses of them at once solely in order to minimise the prospect of their being worked on. There is near zero chance of an article being re-assessed. I am not denying that the articles have not been worked on since 2012, but if the whole purpose of GAR is to fix articles so they don't need to be delisted, then Libstar should step up and work on the articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your issue is more to do with GAR as a process, Hawkeye7. If the only people who can bring articles to GAR are those who are going to fix them, then there's no point in GAR at all. To me, your attitude's a bit like saying "what's the point of doing GA reviews? If there are problems with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. If there aren't, award the GA status". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no point in GAR at all. The original idea was to workshop articles to keep them up to standard. The nominator was expected to participate in the process. This is the way FAR works. What we have here is mass nomination of dozens of articles with no actionable work items solely in order to delist them. By mass nominating you can minimise the prospect of their being worked on. In future, we can expect hundreds of articles to be nominated at once, with little or no rationale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Any articles of similar topic that come to GAR at the same time are kept for longer to allow people to work on them. See for example Albert Einstein, which was kept on hold for two months so that physics-related GARs for Universe, Astronomy, and Electricity could be finished first. The GAR talk archives hold further discussion of this topic. None of this present glut of Australian water polo-playing women are very long articles, or require that much in the way of WP:SOFIXIT, so they'll be given a month in total, instead of the usual week. Anything else, Hawkeye7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is mass nomination of dozens of articles with no actionable work items solely in order to delist them We have exactly 12 articles at GAR right now, so this is patently false. I said previously that I don't approve of them being listed all at once, and they don't have to be closed after 1 week. You are implicitly accusing people participating in GAR of acting in bad faith without evidence. If nobody wants to work on them after we've kept them open for a while, the long and short of it is they have to eventually be delisted. You seem to think that everyone has to fix any problems they identify themselves, which is not how a volunteer project works. In future, we can expect hundreds of articles to be nominated at once, with little or no rationale is actually complete bullshit, quite frankly, and you need to stop with the theatrics and absurd slippery-slope analogy that has no connection to reality. Obviously we would reject nominating that many at once as out of process. Your participation in this space is turning into a negative, and I'm asking you to reconsider your approach. You are doing nothing to help these articles while demanding others do so for you. Are you really surprised that you're not being seen as reasonable right now? Based on my comprehensive analysis, which you haven't disputed, the bringing of this article to GAR was 100% proper and I would have done the same had I come across it.

Again, we are all volunteers and there's not enough volunteer time and energy to save every single article. That's just how things are. You don't have to like it (and quite frankly, I don't either) but that's the state of this project and that means some articles will end up being delisted. If you don't like the process so much, you're free not to participate, but we do not need you coming in here and attacking other editors. I've lost a lot of respect for you after seeing your behavior here, Hawkeye. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems like it'd be a better fit for the GAR talk page than this specific reassessment, but I would like to concur with Hog Farm that it would have made things a lot easier if the GAR nominator had gone into a little more detail in the nomination statement, and the same in the other nominations. If the complaint is comprehensiveness, the nominator doesn't necessarily have to fix the article, but the nominator absolutely should verify that encyclopedically relevant events have happened in the subject's life since the article stopped being updated. If updates have slowed to a trickle, that might be because the article is out of date, but it might be because the person has semi-retired, or is simply way more low-profile now. In the latter case, then an article that "stops" in 2010 might still be comprehensive. It sounds like that in this specific biography, there are indeed some events that need inclusion, but the existence of such events should be stated either on the talk page or in the nomination statement, ideally with links showing this to be true. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I make a point to highlight exactly what the deficiencies in an article are when I nominate it, which really should be expected from listings. At least for this article there were serious problems but the barebones listing statement didn't make it obvious. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The water polo articles were created by myself and another Wikipedian in 2012 as Wikipedians in Residence with the Australian Olympic Committee but we were transferred to the History of the Paralympics in Australia (HOPAU) project, which is why they stop in 2012. I am the only one left now. I came here because the articles were still on my watch list. I am very busy at present but will have a look at this article. A list of deficiencies would be useful. I would ask that only one water polo article be processed at a time to give me the time to work on them. I note that I have an articles sitting in the GAN queue for up to six months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GARs are kept open as long as someone has worked in them in the past two weeks, for a limit of three months in total, Hawkeye7. All have the same deficiencies—all the athletes competed at Rio 2016, and some even in Tokyo, but there is little to no information about their careers provided on the respective page. If you are unable to work on them, they will have to be delisted, as the GA status is public-facing and should be kept as reliable as possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2023 (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.