Talk:William Bedle/GA1

GA Review

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

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

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

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This article is clearly not "Broad in its coverage". We are not shown why Bedle was thought to be a decent cricketer. We don't even know basic information such as if he was a bowler or a batter, or if he was left or right handed. Much more information and detail required. Consider looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale which indicates for Start class that an article: "Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more." - that is the case here. If no more information can be found on the topic, this may be a case where the article will never develop beyond Start class. SilkTork *^YES! 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The prose is clear and contains no mistakes. The lead section doesn't cover Bedle's playing career or who he played for - material contained in the body of the article. Needs development.

Not all sources are reliable. One source is from the main contributor's own website - an admirable website. However, speculation in the article that "Bedle probably played in the first known inter-county match between Kent and Surrey on Dartford Brent in the 1709 season" is sourced to the author's similar speculation on the website. This is counted as original research.

It is neutral and stable.

It contains an appropriate, tagged image.

After looking over the main points again, and paying attention to the view that the article may be considered to be broad enough as there is no more information to be found on Bedle, my conclusion remains that the article fails GA, and that the article contains of itself very little hard information about Bedle. I have placed some tags on the article as there is a bit of speculation and original research. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I think this has been rejected far too easily. The nomination itself made clear that the article is short because all the known data about Bedle, which essentially comes from two sources, is included in the article. As a short article, it cannot be "broad" in coverage. I would point out that GAR was designed for short articles and that this principle has recently been restated on GAR talk pages.

The review has ignored the footnote attached to GAC#3a which reads: This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics. The article has been failed because it is short and that is an invalid reason.

To address the points made in the review.

"We are not shown why Bedle was thought to be a decent cricketer." The article clearly states the view expressed in the main source that he was "accounted the most expert cricket player in England" and there are other references stating that his team Dartford was reckoned the best at the time and he was "the first great player in cricketing annals". We cannot go into a discussion about the whys and wherefores of this because we would breach WP:OR.

"We don't even know basic information such as if he was a bowler or a batter, or if he was left or right handed." This doesn't really matter. It is precisely because of the lack of surviving data that it is a short article and the GA process is meant to cater for short articles. The sources have established his WP:N by stating that he was the best player of his generation and the article has provided as much ancillary information as possible to support the sources: e.g., by naming the known matches that Bedle probably did play in.

In my opinion, either the reviewer does not understand that short articles are eligible for GAR; or else GAR is superfluous as a mere dress rehearsal for FAR.

We need to decide if GAR is meaningful in its own right and if it does welcome articles that are short by necessity. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to detailed review

Thanks very much for considering all the criteria as this is much more useful. The point of nominating this article was that WP:CRIC has a host of short articles on account of limited surviving data and I wanted to test the GAR process to see how it would cope. I expected that the article would be viewed as "not long enough" because of the lost data and I was right. This is inconsistent with the stated purpose of GAR to welcome short articles. In my view, the "broad in coverage" criterion needs to be rewritten as it is unfit for purpose.

To improve the article, I've acted upon the useful points raised and have managed to expand it a little bit. I should not have quoted my own site and have instead quoted from Professor Underdown's book which says much the same things. I found your comments about the lead especially constructive and have made some changes there. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)