Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roger Waters/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: GabeMc, Burrobert, Popcornfud, WikiProject Pink Floyd, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject Music, WikiProject United Kingdom, April 2022
Review section
[edit]Right now, there is too much weight placed on Waters' political views and activism, while the high quality RS focus more on his musical output. There's a lot of proseline issues where individual incidents are mentioned without enough connection, and excessive weight to reactions to Waters' stances/actions where it would be better to let the reader decide. The article needs a substantial cleanup/rewrite as was done at the JKR article. Unfortunately, my efforts to clean up some of these issues were reverted. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The activism section should be rewritten. As you mentioned it is a list of disconnected events. Activism is a large part of his life now. However, it is rare for our green-tick sources to report on his (or anyone else's) left-wing activism because of the nature of those sources. Btw, there are warnings on Water's talk page stating that editors on the page must have over 500 edits and are restricted to two reverts per 24 hours. The editor who reverted your changes broke both rules. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that the activism coverage isn't up to snuff. Popcornfud (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. The activism section needs to be seriously trimmed. Also, I don't know why a bio article has the "Live band members" section and I think it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't move to FARC, fix the article. Can somebody tell me exactly what's wrong with the "Activism" section? I've gone through and trimmed it down and removed anything that was either questionably sourced (don't cite Fox News in an FA - jeez) or just unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ritchie, that's definitely a big improvement but concerns remain:
- 2022 tour not mentioned in the article, this and other updating issues seem to still be present
- A longish further reading section raises suspicions that article may not be well-researched as required by the FA criteria. Ideally these works are either cited if relevant, or removed if not.
- SandyGeorgia, Burrobert for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The "big four" of Blake, Mabbett, Povey and Schaffner are being used as cites, which (IMHO) tends to cancel out any biases of a single author, while "Further Reading" contains entries that probably duplicate or don't add on any of the information in the existing sources and could probably be trimmed. For example, there's not much point citing Andy Mabbett's books from 1994-95 when one from 2010 contains the same information, with corrections. I'll have to do an audit of them. In my view, a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" can mean "this source doesn't tell us anything new and isn't as recent or well-respected as the others, so there's not much value citing from it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If "this source doesn't tell us anything new", it shouldn't be listed in further reading. (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping. I'll obviously leave the decisions to others, but be aware that The Visual Documentary covers Waters' solo career in more depth - and with more images - than The Music and the Mystery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The "big four" of Blake, Mabbett, Povey and Schaffner are being used as cites, which (IMHO) tends to cancel out any biases of a single author, while "Further Reading" contains entries that probably duplicate or don't add on any of the information in the existing sources and could probably be trimmed. For example, there's not much point citing Andy Mabbett's books from 1994-95 when one from 2010 contains the same information, with corrections. I'll have to do an audit of them. In my view, a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" can mean "this source doesn't tell us anything new and isn't as recent or well-respected as the others, so there's not much value citing from it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ritchie, that's definitely a big improvement but concerns remain:
- Move to FARC: apparently, trimming activism meant removing all mention of his controversial views on Venezuela. Odd, that; perhaps reduce paragraphs to one-sentence summaries instead. I suspect this article will be mired in POV for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really covered much in high-quality sources? AFAICT, Waters' activism tends to be covered similarly to Rowling's political stances, often by lower quality sources so it's hard to judge due weight. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrasting the approach taken to Rowling demonstrates the problems in sorting the POV in the activism section ... for example, we have Huffington Post as a source ... entire paragraphs on some issues, no mention of others ... what is the criteria for inclusion here? It's certainly not sourcing with things like HuffPost included, while Clarín (Argentine newspaper) is discarded. Also, I hope the prose in the Activism section is not representative of the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really covered much in high-quality sources? AFAICT, Waters' activism tends to be covered similarly to Rowling's political stances, often by lower quality sources so it's hard to judge due weight. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, most of the best Pink Floyd / Waters sources are at least ten years old, and while there are a few more recent books, they concentrate on the music. So we have to look elsewhere. I basically took out anything that didn't obviously seem to be an acceptable source, including several that I think would not pass muster at WP:RSN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We have/had the same situation at Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography, and those written are 20 years old. We opted for a very tight summary of Politics of J. K. Rowling, but I don't believe we completely deleted anything covered in reputable broadsheet sources. This article could similarly benefit from starting over with how the Activism section was worked by, a) establishing Politics of Roger Waters, then b) tightly summarizing the issues back to the main article, c) with cleaner prose and less quoting than what is there now, and d) without using sources like Huffington Post, e) and without eliminating sources like The Guardian and Clarin that cover his views on Venezuela. Roger Waters has vocally advocated controversial and unpopular stances in many areas; that warrants an adequate summary from a sub-article, rather than eliminating some of those views. At 5,000 words, this article does not have the WP:SIZE constaints that Rowling has, so it should not be as difficult to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, most of the best Pink Floyd / Waters sources are at least ten years old, and while there are a few more recent books, they concentrate on the music. So we have to look elsewhere. I basically took out anything that didn't obviously seem to be an acceptable source, including several that I think would not pass muster at WP:RSN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing seems to have been done in the past week or so. Should we move it to FARC again? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 23:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't got the time to do the major work required to fix this article up to meet the FA criteria again, and looking at the history, nobody else has either. So I guess FARC is inevitable, but I also think this should serve as a reminder to exactly what we're doing to retain editors who can write brilliant content - all too often, they get scared away or blocked on trumped-up civility charges when they finally snap. It also doesn't really change my view that I think FAC is a fool's errand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. 02:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, no improvement since move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, more unsourced/poorly source content has been added since the move to FARC. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist additional, uncited information has been added to the article since its move to FARC. Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.