Talk:Social media use by Barack Obama/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

The consensus agrees to broaden the scope of this article into Barack Obama's social media use rather than to let it be still about his Twitter use. Therefore, I'm afraid that it may no longer meet GA criteria. Although DRV discussion is still ongoing, there are many people endorsing administrator's decision to keep this article. I hope this reassessment request is not affected. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, how does one necessitate the other? A desire to change the article doesn't mean the article isn't or wasn't good, and even then, why would we do the reassessment before a major change instead of after? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What about stable criteria? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

'Unstable' usually implies an edit war or dispute, not merely the normal process of editing. Moreover, we haven't even gone about deciding how the 'broadening' will happen, much less made major changes to the article. Again, how can we reassess it before we've done anything? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was nominated twice for AFD. One was no consensus; other was keep due to forum shopping. DRV is up. There are discussions about merging into Barack Obama without success. Tony and Lucifer made edit wars recently. How is this article still stable? --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage discussions and the like don't qualify as instability, those are things we're supposed to do. Similarly, bold change followed by revert is the normal process. Stable does not mean 'finished' or 'set in stone'. And for a third time, what's the rush? In the long run, don't we want to (re)assess the 'social media' article, if that's the one we want to have? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes because the consensus said so, but we are advised to wait until the DRV is over. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, so, the DRV ends, then we make changes, then we may reassess because the article has changed significantly from the article that was initially listed as a GA. Make sense? Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait on another editor here then. Meanwhile, I have other interests to do rather than spend time how recent this article is. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought reassessing means delisting, right? If not, then what about User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Urf. I do think the method of drafting the new article in a sandbox is good, but, that as it stands at the moment is not exactly a good replacement now it has been deleted by user request, apparently. Rather, we want to add information of the same quality as what we have (well-written, referenced, etc.) concerning other outlets and methods employed. Actually, an alternative is making something like 'Barack Obama on social Media' as a separate article in mainspace, then we'd have somewhere to legitimately merge to, once we'd written up other sections. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

uh...reassessing just means reassessing? the article is reviewed again. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, "stable" criterion passed. What about "broad" criterion? --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we're doing the review ourselves. Yes, we want to make the article broader, however the article as it stands still passes the criteria as defined with

"(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"

You can disagree about necessary detail, of course, but don't let the fact that a broader option exists make you think this article doesn't pass the broad criteria, cf. Copper -> Metal. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, prior AFD resulted as no consensus due to the nature of this subtopic. Even recent AFD shouldn't have been made, which resulted keep, which resulted DRV. Even prior AFD has better closing rationale than recent. I'm reading the article, and I don't see how broad it is... or excessive it is. Nevertheless, it discusses increase and decrease of followers based on events. "Controversy" section is all right, but why Kanye West thing? Don't know about "Obama as Twitter subject", but... What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Followers are to some degree a measure of the impact or reach possible with Twitter...I happen to feel the controversies and mishaps are amusing/interesting but unhelpful to the article as a whole; especially with all the arguing to keep I seem to be doing for the sake of getting TonytheTiger more stickers. As a subject in the political arena seems fair to me, certainly more so than making articles for all the people that said something about him on twitter. But you know, now we're reaching exactly the sort of discussion a talk-page is for. Not everything needs to involve policies and proposals and rfc-afd-drv-3rr-tla's and finding admins that will do what you want. These are things that we can just discuss. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope these sources are not making a POV, even if it looked to be written as neutral. For instance, one may say that one event caused people to stop following his Tweets. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, depends. Obviously, if we feel the source is trying to spin the situation a certain way, we could question its reliability, but there isn't an NPOV problem in having it it the article if that's the way the source reports it, unless we purposefully exclude other reliable sources that disagree. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Am I correct in inferring that the proponents of expanding the article understand that it is currently a WP:GA, but intend to expand it in a shoddy way so that it is no longer a GA?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't think anything as complex as that is happening. George has his particulars, and LWC has a...well, an issue of some sort with the very concept of the article, and the two happen to run into each other occasionally, but I don't think anyone has conspired to purposefully make the article bad. LWC wouldn't be that delicate in the first place. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the particulars is that they intend to take a lot of actions to the article without any regard for maintaining its GA status--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Really all you need to do is change the lede to make it broadened for all social media, make the rest of the current article a Twitter subsection, and then add in info for other social media that Obama has used. Silverseren^C 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you have the order reversed on that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No deadline?

• Update - DRV is closed as endorsed. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, a favor to broaden this article by consensus still stands per Beeblerox. But there is no deadline, so maybe we can broaden/restructure the article now or later. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If this moves whole to Barak Obama on social media, then it moves from something that qualified as a "good article" on what the community determined was a "bad" topic, to an article that cannot currently be considered a "good article" but reflecting a topic the community has determined is a good topic. The benefits of maintaining a "good article" rating at the wrong place minimal to non-existant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Regardless, rather than have the issue of an article that's not what it says it is; unless someone plans to do all the writing and moving in one go, why not just write Barack Obama on social media, then make this article, in part or whole, the twitter section of that article when it's needed? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • .... That's fine, as well. Nevertheless, this Twitter article won't be FA due to the nature of this topic. --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

          Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Justin Bieber on Twitter/archive1 Just in case. --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

        • Well, there's the folly of generalizing, that article got deleted at AfD, this one didn't. If it wouldn't pass the FAC, that's an issue of quality of the writing. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Also, what prompted you to bring FA up in the first place?

Aftermath of renaming

Update: It is now Barack Obama on social media. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no understanding why you would make this change when you don't want to expand the article. All you seem to want to do is delete relevant content. Why not spend some time adding the content that is in keeping with the name change you support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this was nominated for a reassessment when said consensus to broaden the scope of the article hasn't even taken part (yet)? GAR is to basically re-review an article, to see if it actually goes comply with the GA criteria. Without any changes to the article, what's the point? I could understand it just saying something like "the article isn't stable, so therefore it does not pass the GA criteria", but the first post just mentions how the article is to be expanded (which has Tony, or any other editor even decided to do?). As for the rename, I've reverted it. I'm quite surprised to see that someone was foolish enough to move it. Especially not even changing the lead, as it still appears to say: "Barack Obama's Twitter account (@BarackObama) is the official Twitter account for United States President Barack Obama and is used for his election efforts." I suggest people stop trying to just delete an article and actually help out to work on it, yeah? Statυs (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The focus has changed; official website is added as a prose. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delist as a GA. With the change in scope, the article is clearly not GA calibre - not even close - especially with the incredibly poor lead section as it stands now. The newly-reformatted article should go through a new GA nomination when its proponents feel it is ready. Resolute 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• • After all the commotion about changing the name (likely for the purpose of getting the article delisted), there seems to be almost no interest in actually creating the article for the ne name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominator appears to have abandonned the reassessment so I will close it. The general consensus here is that since the scope has been broadened it now no longer meets the criteria. So I will delist the current version. AIRcorn (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)