Talk:Ellen Roberts/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

This article does not meet the 3rd criteria of a "Good Article" in my opinion.

"Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

This article goes into many unnecessary details as regards the political actions of Roberts. Rather than summarizing her actions, this article gives a laborious "play-by-play." If you compare it with articles of politicians in similar offices, you will easily note that this article is extraordinarily long.Grassrootsgirl (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The general format of the article and level of detail were not objected to in its original GA nomination, nor were similar objections raised for my GANs on other Colorado legislators, such as Douglas Bruce (GAN), Joe Rice (GAN), or John Kefalas (GAN). While some of the more mundane sections on Roberts' legislative accomplishments could certainly be improved by streamlining and condensing them, recent edits to the article by User:Grassrootsgirl have removed a substantial amount of biographical content and reformatted the article into a non-chronological order; relative lack of biographical content has actually been a mild objection on several past GANs I've made for legislators. As I'm going to be away for most of the weekend, I recommend that an uninvolved third party take a look at the edit history and the old version of the article before Grassrootsgirl's edits. -- Sethant (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sethant, I am quite new to Wiki-land, as I am sure you have gathered. I confess that I am being bold in my edits as Wikipedia encourages, although there is a steep learning curve, and so I have made mistakes on the way. I initially edited out some of Roberts biographical information because it was too narrowly focused on her political achievements, even in high school. In retrospect, it would have been better to add in other information or checked for citations it, but to be honest, I didn't know how to undo that and I knew that Wikipedia kept an old version on file, so I figured it could still be rectified. However, I had edited that, I was quite surprised to find that everything left was simply repetitive of the preceding paragraph. So I edited that out as well. As to changing the chronological order, it placed the more relevant information closer to the beginning of the article and actually improves the flow as it ends her Bio info with her 2010 race and picks up her legislative Hx there. I did reverse it all so that it is in order from newest to oldest so it is consistent. And I looked at some of your other articles that you mentioned and the blow by blow of those political careers were far less mundane, (especially Douglas Bruce, oh my goodness) and grouped more to topic. And so I stand by my original concern. I think that it is a great idea to get a third party involved... how does that happen? ThanksGrassrootsgirl (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am likely somewhat biased as the original GA reviewer (under my prior account name of Sarcasticidealist), I think that this article still meets the GA criteria. There's certainly room for refinement through the consensus process, but I don't see any problems so radical to call for delisting. Some of your edits to the article have been problematic: for example, here you deteled material because it was already covered in the lead. However, per WP:LEAD, the lead is intended to summarize the article's contents—that is, everything in the lead should also be found elsewhere in the article. As well, the edit summary here is somewhat misleading, since besides reordering material, the edit also deleted a great deal of material. On the substance of that edit, ordering events from the present backwards is extremely unconventional, and I don't believe that I have seen it used in any other Wikipedia articles.

What I would suggest you do—and you are quite at liberty to disregard my advice—is revert your edits for now, withdraw your reassessment request, and initiate discussion at talk:Ellen Roberts on specific changes that you would like to make. If we can't agree there, we can make use of tools such as third opinion and request for comment to bring previously uninvolved editors into the discussion. Steve Smith (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that delisting was radical :-) So, how do I go about taking your advice? How do I revert my edits and withdraw the reassessment request?Grassrootsgirl (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)