Talk:Barefoot/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SnowflakeWay (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article will fail the 'broad in coverage' requirement. Going barefoot is universal but the article focuses mainly on western culture. I've mentioned some areas on the Talk Page which should be investigated for inclusion in this article: barefoot torture (the boot, caning, etc.); the sexualization of the bare foot; and barefoot dancing. Footbinding might also be investigated and included. Some passages appear OR such as this: "Bare feet have also come to symbolize innocence or childhood, and this may be one reason why hippies often went barefoot during the counterculture movement of the 1960s." This sentence is not cited. Nevertheless, it has the air of uniformed opinion rather than fact based on the rigorous examination of evidence. It's possible hippies went barefoot for other reasons such as comfort or lack of funds to buy footwear. Do barefeet symbolize innocence or childhood around the world? There are other uncited OR-type passages which strike me as unencyclopedic. The long list of pop singers who go barefoot strikes me as trivia and unencyclopedic. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and working on the areas mentioned. I would make an effort to 'globalize' the article rather than giving western culture all the weight. In spite of the section detailing the risks of going barefoot, the article is not neutral but reads as a screed supporting barefootedness. This should be adjusted.SnowflakeWay (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! You've raised several important points and I'm sure they will help improve the article. However, I am unsure of your actions here. Typically at WP:GAN, the reviewer makes one of four decisions: (a) pass, (b) fail, (c) put on hold pending revisions (most articles seem to be placed on hold, usually for about 2-3 weeks), or (d) asking for a second opinion by a more experienced reviewer. It's exceedingly rare for a reviewer to "suggest withdrawing", especially after s/he initiates the review by creating the /GA1 sub-page. Also, it's generally considered common practice to put all comments pertaining to the review in that /GA1 sub-page, instead of making extra comments outside of the review (as you've done with the 'content additions' section of the page). I do notice from your edit history that this appears to be your first GA Review, so perhaps it's best to ask for a second opinion by an editor more familiar with the six GA criteria. I think most of the issues raised are addressable within the "on hold" timeframe.

I do agree that the article needs a more global viewpoint, particularly adding information about asia and the pacific islands, and possibly the north/south american tribes (pre-european colonies). So I will work on adding that information.

Barefoot dancing is a good thing to add. I will look into that more and find sources.

As far as the "sexualization" comments, some brief information about foot fetishes and the like could be added, but there already is a foot fetish article, which is where most content on that should go. If you read most of the references cited, the vast majority of people that go barefoot really don't do it for sexual reasons. I don't think it's appropriate to turn this article into another foot fetish article anyways, which, if you look deeper into this article's edit history, is what some editors have tried to do (and, in fact, some of those same editors got banned for some of it). With regards to "torture of the bare foot", I really can't see what that has to do with going barefoot. A google search for torture of the bare foot or barefoot torture reveals little more than links to foot fetish, porn, or BDSM websites, none of which meet WP:RS sourcing requirements. You do mention things like caning the feet, or the boot device; and I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition probably has developed torture methods for virtually every part of the body. But torturing the feet wasn't really done because someone was barefoot. Sure, the feet probably weren't covered when they were tortured, but one was tortured in the feet probably to prevent them from walking or running away, barefooted or not.

Regarding your WP:OR comments, every single sentence in an article does not have to be cited with an inline citation (nor should every sentence be cited). Criterion #2 states that inline citations are required for, "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". If several sentences or an entire paragraph is backed up by one inline citation, it's generally customary and acceptable to put a single citation at the end of the paragraph, or after the last of the multiple sentences/statements being cited. I am also confused that, on one hand, you state, "The long list of pop singers who go barefoot strikes me as trivia and unencyclopedic." but in the 'content additions' section (above), you mention several pop culture items that you feel should be added. Celebrities and pop culture is still relevant to articles, and can certainly be included. What generally does not meet the GA criteria are the unsourced, bulleted lists of 'notable people ... blah blah blah' (see above: "contentious material relating to living persons" needs to be cited). But well-written prose mentioning various celebrities still meets the GA criteria.

Not sure how to address your comments on neutrality, which is partially why I think it's best for a second opinion by a more experienced reviewer. Perhaps you could provide some more specific examples. The first second mostly states cited facts about the history of people going barefoot as well as why people started wearing shoes, and I can't see why connecting bare feet with poverty would exactly "encourage" someone to go barefoot? The 'health implications' section mentions the positive and negative aspects of going barefoot, and even ends with a section on ALTERNATIVES to going barefoot. The rest of the article mostly mentions cited facts dealing with urban legends and sports/recreation, and the barefoot running paragraph even ends on a statement highlighting some of the dangers of running barefoot without proper preparation. The mention of barefoot placekicking also pretty much shoots down (cited, of course) the two major reasons why football placekickers perform barefoot. WTF? (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article falls short of GA status, especially in the broad in coverage and neutrality areas. It's well-written - no prose or grammar problems - but it reads like an unencyclopedic screed supporting barefootedness. For me, it has an overall, superficial "Brief History and Joy of Going Barefoot" magazine article tone and feel about it that I consider unencyclopedic. There are subject areas that need to be examined and developed: torture of the bare foot; the sexualization/erotic attraction of the bare foot; dancing bare foot (hula, classical Thai, modern; Isadora Duncan, etc.); care of the bare foot (pedicure, foot baths, etc.); sensitivity of the bare foot, especially the sole; footbinding, and work performed with bare feet. The longer sections could be broken down into smaller sections. The religious aspects could be a separate section, for example, and further developed. At this point, you've more or less made it clear that you're not going to develop areas that I think are important to a broad coverage of the topic and I don't "buy" your reasons for not doing so. How can I not fail the article under the circumstances? SnowflakeWay (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

PASS

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

FAIL. Some of the longer sections could be broken down into smaller sections (the religious aspects could be a separate subsection and the individual sports could be separate subsections).

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

PASS.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and

FAIL. Some "controversial statements that are ... likely to be challenged" are unsupported (see OR below).

(c) it contains no original research.

FAIL. Some statements appear to be OR such as the statement about hippies going barefoot because it is a symbol of innocence.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

FAIL. This is the main problem with the article. The article neglects several main aspects such as torture of the bare foot; the sexualization/erotic attractions of the bare foot; dancing bare foot; working bare foot; care of the bare foot; etc. Additionally, it is overwhelming focused on western culture rather than globval culture. Barefoot is universal.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

FAIL. Discussion of footwear such as chopines and pattens are not relevant to the topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

FAIL. The article for me has a cumulative, overall, unencyclopedic 'pro-barefoot' bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

PASS.

Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

PASS.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

PASS.

I have failed this article principally because it does not satisfy the 'broad in coverage' requirement. It neglects such important areas as dancing in bare feet; the sexualization of the bare foot; and the torture of the bare foot while cataloging trivial information such as pop singers who perform barefoot because they find it relaxing and marginal material such as a history of footwear in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Though the torture of the bare foot and the sexualization of the bare foot may be disturbing or distasteful to some, I consider these areas essential to an article about 'barefoot'. The article needs a broader scope and some work before GA status is achieved. SnowflakeWay (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness, you're absolutely right about the western bias. I'd help to even things out, but it's a bigger challenge than I have time for.--Rfsmit (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]