Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Billy Sunday/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Billy Sunday

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist and article has improved during reassessment. Hence keep as GA. Geometry guy 01:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related WikiProjects and main contributors have been notified and a notice was left on article's talk page.


I reviewed this article for Sweeps and made changes throughout the article before passing it. I had initially considered taking the article here for a community consensus, but figured that I would address the issues I noticed. The article is well-written and is also sourced for the most part. My main concern with the article is what I believe to be POV language throughout the article. In my edits, I tried to alleviate most of it, and was reverted by one of the article's contributors. Examples of some of the POV language is the use of "brilliant", "remarkable", "exceptional", "money-grubbing charlatan", and use of italics to stress a point such as "...gainfully employed worker made $836 per year." None of the use of these words is quoted to a particular individual or placed in quotation marks. I had also condensed some of the paragraphs in the lead to reach four paragraphs per WP:LEAD, but it has been returned to five paragraphs. I'd like others to take a look at the article to see if I'm being too strict or if there are other issues that I overlooked. As a side note, the article had a previous GAR shortly after it was first passed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support your efforts. I am a strong believer in a four paragraph limit on WP:LEADs.
the dabs should be cleaned up.
I believe that any GA should have at least a citation per paragraph. There are currently two paragraphs without citation.
I also endorse your POV language complaint.
However, all the problems are at very minor levels. I would take this to a community GAR to help give the editors the proper encouragement to improve the article. I would tend to vote keep for this article, but would really like to see improvements and would endorse any action likely to bring about such changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be at the community GAR page, but it looks like the bot hasn't picked it up yet. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't formatted a community GAR in so long, I must of clicked on individual GAR accidentally. The bot should now add this page to the list. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diff you provided, before I even go over to the current article, I agree that POV needs cleaned. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided the four paragraph lead and ensured that each paragraph has a citation. I'd like the debate to center on the language, which I believe is simply good writing. If any significant changes are to be made there—especially without reference to the sources—I will try to have the GA status withdrawn.--John Foxe (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on dealing with the lead and sources. The language may be good writing, but if words such as "brilliant" and "money-grubbing charlatan" were not from the sources, then it is illustrating the view of the contributors, not the facts. If you are saying that these words are used by the authors (or attributed to others) within the source, then it needs to be placed in quotation marks, followed by a direct citation. There's no reason to threaten to have the GA withdrawn, when there only some changes to the article that need to be made. Even if the the GA were to be delisted, uncited opinions of Sunday should still be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a sample from the American National Biography bio of Sunday. Of course, there are no citations to any authorities: "The conservative nature of his theology also was apparent in his caustic denigration of theological liberalism. Probably the only people he loathed more than liquor producers and sellers were pastors and seminarians who derided the authority and inerrancy of Scripture." Note, for instance, the words "caustic denigration" and "loathed."--John Foxe (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the major contributors to and editors of this article. I do agree with John Foxe that Sunday's ministry and life elicited strong language from his contemporary commentators, both admirers and critics. Contemporary sources will show that language. In fact, one of my objections to this article all along has been that the picture the article paints of Sunday makes a reader wonder why such language was used; in other words, Sunday got people worked up, but the Wikipedia portrait doesn't show that guy. The section on his religious views might prove my point. Anyway, I am on record throughout the discussion page as believing that the article does have POV issues. I more or less gave up arguing about it, though, since JF is proprietary about the article and does not want anything in the article to appear demeaning to Sunday's credentials as a conservative Christian. I, on the other hand, feel that Sunday was also a popular culture hero and that that part of his influence should be reflected in the article; I think that Sunday's "human" side, if you will, takes nothing away from his success as an evangelist. JF and I agreed to disagree, and the article is what it is. However, I do believe the article is well written; I believe it deserves to be GA; I believe it is well sourced and factual; and I believe it does not have a NPOV. I welcome input from others to provide that NPOV.Rocketj4 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Rocketj4's edits, which seem to defuse the objections about POV language. (I'm amused that the Carl Sandburg quotations now make his criticism of Sunday sound almost genteel.)--John Foxe (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least the vitriol Sandburg felt toward Sunday shows up in the quote in the footnote.--Rocketj4 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Foxe and I have fallen back into our edit war. (See article history & talk page.) I would really appreciate it if we could have a mediator. Is there anyone out there who can chime in with an opinion?--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and found the following issues or phrases that I believe to be POV. If others disagree, feel free to point out if I'm being too stringent.

  1. "...he was a part-time player, taking superstar Mike "King" Kelly's place..." I think "superstar" is excessive, and the sentence wouldn't hurt with its removal.
  2. "A former society matron who worked there finally convinced Sunday that he must receive Christ, and after some struggle, he did so." "must receive Christ" should be reworded. Assuming someone does not know of the religion, and this being the first mention of Christ, perhaps it should be reworded to something like "convinced Sunday of the Christian ideology" or "convinced Sunday of accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ" or "persuaded Sunday to believe in Jesus Christ" or something to that effect.
  3. "...viewing all professional baseball players as "transient ne'er-do-wells who were unstable and destined to be misfits once they were too old to play."" Citations should go directly after quotes (even if duplicated at the end of the paragraph). There are a few other occurrences in the article.
  4. "Nevertheless, Sunday pursued her and soon won her heart." This should be rewritten to present a more encyclopedic view on the event.
  5. "Chapman was well educated and was a meticulous dresser, suave and urbane." This should be reworded, unless sourced.
  6. "Long separations had exacerbated his natural feelings of inadequacy and insecurity." If this is something he said/wrote, it should be directly cited and quoted. I'd say the same for the following sentence.
  7. "With his wife administering the campaign organization, Sunday was free to do what he did best:" I debated this one, but stating what he "did best" may be difficult unless a particular person stated so. One could argue that he played baseball the best or he excelled at something else. If it can't be cited, it would probably be "best" to reword (does that qualify as a pun, I don't think so?).
In my opinion, this sentence is fine. Only a pedant would argue that Sunday's greatest gift was something other than evangelistic preaching.--John Foxe (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The vast numbers who "hit the sawdust trail" are also remarkable." This should be up to the reader to decide if it "remarkable".
  2. "Undoubtedly some audience members simply wanted to shake Sunday's hand." Without a direct cite, this could be interpreted as OR.>
  3. "The major cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, and New York City gave Sunday even larger love offerings." What is a "love offering"?
  4. "..."if you have done your part (i.e. believe that Christ died in your place, and receive Him as your Saviour and Master) God has..." In the source is the statement in parenthesis included or was that added? If it's not part of the quote then it should be reworded to present a neutral view (it's usually not best to use "we" or "you"). If it is part of the quote, then ignore this.
Yep, it's all a quotation from Sunday's tract. If you insert your own words into a quotation, you use brackets.--John Foxe (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A few times throughout the article "of course" and "obviously" are used. These would benefit with being reworded.
  2. "Worse, the Sundays were disgraced by the behavior of their three sons who engaged in all the activities Billy preached against." I would recommend removing "worse" and should it be "engaged in many activities" instead of "all"?

This is what I noticed in another read-through, so I invite others to determine if these any of these are not needed or if other issues are noticed. It's good to see that progress is being made on the prior issues, so hopefully this list here will help resolve some of the remaining issues I noticed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like someone to pronounce whether the following sentence from the Billy Sunday bio published in the American National Biography is POV. (Of course, there are no citations to any authorities): "The conservative nature of his theology also was apparent in his caustic denigration of theological liberalism. Probably the only people he loathed more than liquor producers and sellers were pastors and seminarians who derided the authority and inerrancy of Scripture." Note, for instance, the words "caustic denigration" and "loathed."--John Foxe (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can safely pronounce that this is a point of view, as it is very unlikely to be an uncontested factual statement. However the N in NPOV does not stand for "No" or "Not" (unlike NOR), but "Neutral". The neutral point of view is a point of view, and it embraces points of view. The neutral point of view is the one which represents all significant viewpoints fairly and without bias. If the above viewpoint is significant it should be represented. However, the key plank of WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia should not endorse a particular point of view. A simple tool to deal with this is attribution: if instead one writes "According to the American National Biography, the conservative nature of his theology also was apparent in his caustic denigration of theological liberalism", then the reader is free to decide for themselves whether to agree with the source or not. I would expect a contrary view to represented similarly. Geometry guy 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in quoting the statement in the Wikipedia article. I was simply asking why no one blinks an eye when the leading biographical dictionary in the United States publishes such a statement unattributed, whereas similar statements in the Wikipedia article are challenged although they are attributed. For instance, it seems to me that the suggestion we change the phrase "must receive Christ" to "convinced Sunday of the Christian ideology" arises from the belief that wooden and awkward (but politically correct) language is preferable to good English writing. I repeat what I said above, that in my view, rather than change the language, it would be better to withdraw the GA status from this article.--John Foxe (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the statement is attributed. Se my comment below.--Rocketj4 (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the leading biographical reference in the US, no? :-) We need not blink an eye over the lax editorial standards of a rival tertiary source. To return on topic, "must receive Christ" is not brilliant prose, but unencyclopedic and lazy writing unsuitable for a global audience with diverse cultural backgrounds (and I say this as one strongly opposed to political correctness when it is unencyclopedic). I agree that the proposed alternative is wooden, but that is no reason for not trying to do better. However, brilliant prose is not a GA criterion: clear prose is the GA benchmark. Geometry guy 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Wikipedia article stands up pretty well to the ANB. It's certainly more complete. But I like the gutsy prose that I've quoted above. Those are the kinds of sentences I like to read and the kind I like to write. (Fortunately, editors in the real world let me.) It's easy to come up with a list of things you don't like about someone else's writing. It's another matter to actually improve it. That's what I want: someone to get down in the trenches of the sources with me and make genuine improvements. Suggesting phrases like "convincing Sunday of the Christian ideology" is not encouraging.--John Foxe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and you are lucky (as am I) in your real world situation. "To actually improve it" can be improved, for example. Geometry guy 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In the real world, I'd never use the word "actually."--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither - oops, now I come to think of it I have written sentences involving words such as this. Thankfully Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise involving multiple editors, who can trap each other's blind spots. The comments above and below are an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia: I encourage all editors to pursue it. Geometry guy 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to American National Biography, as we have different guidelines and focuses than other sites. Above, I provided alternatives to how to reword the "receive Christ" statement. I didn't state that those options had to be used, but provided alternatives to get the ball rolling. The article does do a great job covering the topic, and I found some sections to be quite entertaining. However, I have pointed out only a few areas in the article that need additional improvement. As requested, I provided a list of the statements that I considered that needed rewording, so if you want to reply to each one for further improving the article that would be great, and help to move this process along. For helping you with the sources, wasn't Rocketj4 assisting you? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one clear difference between Wikipedia and American National Biography. The articles in ANB are signed--in other words, one person wrote each article and every reader knows the real-world identity of that scholar. And, you ask, who wrote the article on Billy Sunday for ANB? It was Lyle Dorsett.--Rocketj4 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me (cough) but is this a reassessment of a GA article, or an FAC? It certainly seems like it after reading the above.--andreasegde (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted a rewrite of the passage in item 2. Argue and/or tweak away.--Rocketj4 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a rewrite for item 4.--Rocketj4 (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC) And fixed item 3.--Rocketj4 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Billy_Sunday/1&oldid=307669054"