Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Amish/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Amish

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. While the neutrality may be a matter for debate, sentences needing citation per 2b remain uncited. Apart from comments from an SPA, no argument has been made for keeping this article as a GA. Geometry guy 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains many problems, most importantly regarding references. Diego_pmc Talk 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more explicit about the problems you see in the article? -Malkinann (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already said: the referencing. The article is actually tagged for missing citations. Diego_pmc Talk 14:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs referencing? I must admit that I think the tone is a bit weird - (Amish#Child discipline for an example) and the proportion of Further reading to references is a concern. -Malkinann (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator lists the "many problems" besides references. True, there's a very small number of citation tags; these should be addressed. However, the "No references" banner on the "Similar groups" section may be overkill, as GA criteria don't mandate citations for each section, and the section in questions doesn't contain quotes, statistics, counter-intuitive claims, etc. Majoreditor (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that — bad wording with the "many problems". But the references/citations are still a problem. Just because sections aren't tagged doesn't mean they are fine. For example: Education, Clothing, a big part of Family life, and not only. BTW, though at this stage this isn't a really big problem, the Portrayal in popular entertainment section might need to be reworked. I don't think it is necessary about every single publication the Amish are mentioned in. But as I said this isn't a very important problem. Diego_pmc Talk 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GA requirements for citation are not that strong. Nevertheless, on going through the article I found 15-20 places where statements of opinion, statistics, or controversy were uncited. And I did not try hard to be comprehensive.
Also, I found the article very bland, and am not convinced it is neutral. By the time I reached the uncritical "The Amish do not educate their children past the eighth grade, believing that the basic knowledge offered up to that point is sufficient to prepare one for the Amish lifestyle." I was expecting to find a criticism section (however non-ideal such a structure may be). All readers get, however, are the criticism implicit in isolationism and media parody, and a section on child abuse. I'm unconvinced this is close to the encyclopedic treatment we should expect from a GA. Geometry guy 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citation does no longer seem to be a problem. I believe criticism of Amish is not notable enough to warrant a section. Smalcat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you believe that? How many of the missing citations have been fixed since I noted the problem? I agree that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but neither should this article be so nonchalant about a way of life which is not without controversy. Geometry guy 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. If controversy is notable (recorded, outspoken) I believe it should have a section, though I can't remember to ever read/hear/see important criticism about amish. I'm sure it exists but it is not notable in my experience. Could it be that your disagreement with their way of life is what makes you object this article is nonchalant? Many feel similar to any form of organized worship and most are written in very similar way. Shall we delist every good religion article, because it is nonchalant about a way of life which is not without controversy?
    About citations: first some really silly things are marked as citation needed, I will delete them when I'll have the time. Second this article has 84 citations, I guess that is more then an average for a good article. Third on quick examination I did not find any crucial citations would be lacking. Prove me wrong : ) Smalcat (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Could it be...?" Nope. My views are irrelevant, and actually I don't disagree with this way of life. "Shall we delist...?" Nope. We simply ensure they are written from an encyclopedic and neutral viewpoint, not an insider viewpoint. "How many missing citations have been fixed?" Precisely zero. Drawing on your vast experience, you say the citations are not needed. I have given reasons for each tag I added in the edit summary. We don't count citations at GAR.
    Ironically, both of your main space edits are to Tax protester constitutional arguments, which is a controversy not unconnected with the Amish, who receive special treatment regarding social security taxes. Schooling is another controversy. It didn't take me long to find a discussion in John A. Hostetler's book on Amish Society, p. 257, at Google Books. Geometry guy 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delist If possible I'd notify the editors of the comments here and give them a week.
    • Coverage looks OK to a mere Brit, but I notice the coverage issues raised above.
    • Citation issues:
      • A few "citation needed" tags, with which I agree. Section "Relations with the outside world" suffers most from citation issues.
      • Final sentences of many paras don't have citations, and it's anyone's guess whether preceding citations in the same paras cover the final sentences.
    • Whole article needs copyediting after citations are brought up to standard. Examples:
      • In the lead, Ordnung is capitalised and linked to an article which describes an "Amish blueprint for expected behavior" and points out that each community sets its own rules. A few sentences later "ordnung" (uncapitalised) apparently means "community".
      • In section "Clothing", sentence "Rather than using "fancy" buttons, zippers, or velcro; hook-and-eye closures or straight pins are used as fasteners on dress clothing" is mess, but can easily be fixed once the citations are in place. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Amish/1&oldid=635802110"