On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > > This is more of a case that most of the information that the guy has > > suggested just doesn't exist period. > > > The review appears to be treating this sport like it is a male dominated > > sport, with male dominated obsession with statistics, access to the same > > amount of funding that men's sport have... and that just isn't the case > > because this is a female administrated and female participation sport > > relying on female spectators. > > I see my suggestions addressed my concerns, not yours, > I feel like you're again not addressing my concerns. I've read that and I've read all the articles I could find on being a good article. My issues were with the particular reviewer and his feedback. I don't feel like you've actually 1) read the netball article, and 2) read the feedback left by the reviewer. It would be tremendously helpful, if you changed your approach, read what I actually wrote and stopped of pointing me at resources that you think are helpful in a general sense and that I've already read. It would be much better if you could read the article, its GA review and offer context specific examples to address the concerns I listed in my original e-mail to the list. Because honestly, I feel like you're behaving just like male reviewer I am having problems with. Despite repeatedly being told that the sources don't exist for X, Y, Z and asking the reviewer how we address that, we get back well do Y, Z, A... which are basically regurgitation of the exact same thing. It feels to me like you've both got your own agendas and world view. You both appear to want to be helpful but you're not willing to work with others to help work towards a shared agenda. In this particular case, getting an article about one of the most popular women's participation sports in the world to Good Article status. It's rather frustrating that a male on this list would, because of the appear of his own agenda which appears to involve sourcing in general for articles suffering notability issues, end up providing information that hinders working towards an important goal of getting more female related content from being featured. Back to my reviewer, I'd rather he had failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1 the article like the reviewer failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1because while the Cook Islands one was a quick fail, the reviewer offered clear examples, good feedback than can be worked towards improving based on the examples, didn't drag it out and followed the procedure. It would be of great assistance if you could actually step in to that discussion, examine what we said and actually help improve the article to get it to good status based on the criteria that the reviewer provided. -- mobile: 0412183663 twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
