Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Pete Forsyth]

Correcting myself: the "r" in WP:GAR is for "reassessment" not "review."

So I was wrong -- y'all have been using the term "Good Article Review" 
accurately.

The rest of my point stands though.

-Pete

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Pete Forsyth]

Good observation, Kath.

I've been wondering whether to point out this detail -- the phrase "good 
article review" has been used a little inaccurately in this discussion. 
A "good article assessment" is what Laura is currently going through, as 
distinct from a "good article review" (what Kath has just pointed out) 
which is essentially an appeal of an assessment that is believed to be 
problematic.


Good Article Review is an option *after* the assessment and related 
discussion is complete. It's sort of like appealing a court decision; 
you identify the specific thing that you think was done wrong, and 
somebody will take that into consideration.


While the assessment's still underway though, I think the approach Laura 
is taking (seeking out additional perspectives) is the right way to go 
about it.


-Pete


On 3/11/11 6:54 PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote:
I don't really know how this all works, but I noticed in the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1 page 
you linked it mentioned this:
"If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to 
WP:GAR . "


is that an option? do/could they have another person review it who 
might have more ideas to help you get it to GA? (or if not this link 
is there another)




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/GA1
because 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.


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Kath O'Donnell]

I don't really know how this all works, but I noticed in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1 page you
linked it mentioned this:
"If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to
WP:GAR.
"

is that an option? do/could they have another person review it who might
have more ideas to help you get it to GA? (or if not this link is there
another)



> 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/GA1 because
> 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.
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Laura Hale]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder  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

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Fred Bauder]

> 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, but this essay:

Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not

may be helpful. It discusses requiring information which is not available
and applying one's personal, read gendered, criteria rather than the good
article criteria. Essays are not policy, but this one seems quite useful.

Fred


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Laura Hale]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

>
> Good article review would be a hassle for anyone. It can bring you up
> against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in a nasty way.


I don't know if you read the Good Article Review but I don't think he has
mentioned sources once.  The closest the reviewer has come to mentioning
sources is adding a {{fact}} tag in the article.


> Strict
> application of reliability guidelines can result in being unable to
> maintain a decent article, let alone a featured article.


I have no idea what the relevance is to my issues... because I don't have a
sourcing issue at all as far as I know.  The closest the reviewer has come
to mentioning sources is adding a {{fact}} tag in the article.



> The same sort of
> thing can happen if you subject the article on your home town to the
> process; most of the interesting information has not been published and
> if everything is not perfectly sourced you would be left with nothing but
> census statistics and GPS coordinates.
>

This is more of a case that most of the information that the guy has
suggested just doesn't exist period.  Beyond that, his suggestions feel like
they are similar to suggesting that you write a history of Asia, where most
of the Asian history that is relevant involves Chechnya, India and Oman.
They are similar but not similar enough that you can write a coherent
narrative involving all three countries.  The information that does exist is
being stripped in many cases.  Which, yeah, trivial possibly but the
reviewer has never really said: The section on Northern Ireland includes
trivial information.



>
> You're running into an underlying policy problem which should probably be
> addressed better than it is. However, as in the case of a small town I
> would turn to local papers or governments, there might be some netball
> newsletters, or a blog or mailing list which arguable could be considered
> a reliable source for this subject.
>

Except the reviewer has never once mentioned reliable sources. He has not
once mentioned sourcing as an issue in his review.

If you're referring to following his advice regarding having the total
number of players by continent, it seems absurd that I would need to run
down the total number of players by each country, then add them up together
by continent.  "There are an estimated 500,000 netball players in Africa.
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]" is what
that would look like because that isn't how the subject is treated.

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.

-- 
mobile: 0412183663
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Fred Bauder]

> Hey,
>
> I'm trying to get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball to good article
> status and hopefully to featured article status.  The discussion is at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1
>
> The literature about netball when you start getting into media
> representation basically follows similar themes:  Because this is a
> women's
> sport, it doesn't get media coverage.  Because it is a non-Olympic sport,
> it
> gets ignored in a wider sporting history. Because it is a women's sport,
> it
> doesn't have the documented history.  It is a women's sport and should be
> celebrated as such, not being forced to conform to male models.
>
> I'm having issues with the Good Article review.  I've never done this
> before
> and I'm feeling a bit frustrated.  I can't figure out if I frustrated
> because:
>
> * I think I'm right and he's completely wrong; OR
> * the reviewer is not communicating clearly; OR
> * the reviewer is treating this sport by standards that would be applied
> to
> men's sport that shouldn't be applied to women's sport; OR
> * I've never gone through this before and my expectations are incorrect.
>
> Does anyone have any insight into this situation?  Or can anyone provide
> assistance in helping edit the article to help get it through the GA
> process?  I feel like I keep taking information out of the article and
> taking information out and I'm not certain why we're constantly removing
> information from the article or how to get information that no matter how
> much searching I can't find.
>
> Sincerely,
> Laura Hale

Good article review would be a hassle for anyone. It can bring you up
against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in a nasty way. Strict
application of reliability guidelines can result in being unable to
maintain a decent article, let alone a featured article. The same sort of
thing can happen if you subject the article on your home town to the
process; most of the interesting information has not been published and
if everything is not perfectly sourced you would be left with nothing but
census statistics and GPS coordinates.

You're running into an underlying policy problem which should probably be
addressed better than it is. However, as in the case of a small town I
would turn to local papers or governments, there might be some netball
newsletters, or a blog or mailing list which arguable could be considered
a reliable source for this subject.

Break a leg,

Fred


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap