Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics/1

Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Endorse fail per comments below and WP:LEAD. If an issue is not purely factual (and so needs inline citation), but of minor importance, it can appear in the body of the article, without appearing in the lead, but placing such material in the lead without further elaboration in the body gives it undue weight. Geometry guy 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial review was closed as a fail with no notice taken of the actual criteria and no suggestions for improvement other than adding a selection of self-calculated (and therefore possibly OR) statistics. The major reason given was a lack of prose however it is my belief that it is comprehensive in its coverage given the scope of the article and is comparable to other GAs of its type. Additionally it satifies the guidelines set out by WikiProject Olympics at WP:OLYMOSNAT. Listing here as the initial reviewer was experienced so I would like a wider opinion rather than just relisting in the hope of a new reviewer. Basement12 (T.C) 07:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I think this article is an example of drilling down in scope too far. The article doesn't satisfy the notability criterion (defining which topics can have their own article). I've placed a banner. Unless notability can be established quickly, appropriate information in this article should be merged into the article on the 1992 Winter Paralympics and this article deleted.

As for GA, the unresolved banner is grounds for not listing it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that is an entirely wrong move. There are thousands of articles of this type in Category:Nations at the Winter Paralympics, Category:Nations at the Summer Paralympics, Category:Nations at the Winter Olympics and Category:Nations at the Summer Olympics as well as multiple sources already listed, there is no doubt that the subject is notable. If you wish to question this I'd suggest taking it up with WikiProject Olympics. As such i've removing the banner from the article with immediate effect. - Basement12 (T.C) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not referring to any class of articles except those that drill down too far. Whether any of the articles in the categories you listed meets notability or not is irrelevant to whether this article does, nor does the examination here of this article pass judgement on them. In fact we here at GAR can only claim to examine notability in this article to address the appropriateness of the banner I placed.

Please tell us how this article meets the notability requirement through the sources provided. I don't see it.

BTW, the venue for notability evaluations is Articles for Deletion, not the wikiproject the article belongs to. I put up a banner rather than nominating it there because I felt it a gentler way to address the issue (AfD is a tough place) Until you demonstrate otherwise, I feel notability hasn't been met and so I am replacing the banner. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you find wrong with the sources provided? I pointed out the need to take it up with WP:OLY as notability guidelines state "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." The decision that breaking down the results of Olympic and Paralympic Games into by nation articles is one that was reached by consensus by the project and one that has always been accepted since (the entirely unworkable alternative is to add all info on all nations to the top level article e.g. 1992 Winter Paralympics). A source for the results, in this instance specifically grouped by nation, is provided. As such if an article of this type were to be taken to AfD it would most certainly survive. I have placed notes at WT:OLY and the Paralympics task force asking for further input. Basement12 (T.C) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A topic in this case refers to that for an individual article, not a class of articles. By consensus refers to (1) the editors involved with the article in any way, or failing consensus, (2) an AfD nomination. Specifically it is not the Wikiproject-- wikiprojects do not get to pass wikipedia policy and do not get to determine notability of articles.

The alternative if this article were merged is not that all country articles for the paralympics would be merged too. Each article passes or fails notability on the merit of its sources. And it is beyond our scope to address the other articles. Our scope is to determine if the notability banner placed on this article is valid. If it is a valid banner, the article cannot be GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask you what you find wrong with the article's sources? It has already appeared on the main page and been viewed by many other editors with no one finding the notability an issue. In my opinion the banner, and your arguments here, are entirely ridiculous, notability for this type of article has long been accepted, by consensus, by a large group of editors. Even if you don't think that its sources make this particular article notable it is perfectly possible for a subject to be notable, regardless of sources, if community consensus allows for it to be an article. In this case it has been decided, by WP:OLY and others, that being a team (representing a nation) at the world's second largest sporting event, the Paralympics, was merit enough for an article in wikipedia. I'm removing the banner and I'd suggest you take the article to AfD if you wish to continue to disagree with that. Basement12 (T.C) 09:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] None of the article's sources are independent and secondary and discuss the topic substantially (all three). Two such sources are required to establish notability.

I don't believe the section on qualifications is rightfully part of this topic (belong in the article), and so the four sources used in it don't apply. I have replaced the banner on the article again, it has not been there long enough for other editors to comment to seek consensus. I hope other editors will comment on this article, there or here. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, the notability this category of article has been a long accepted fact, hence many of the articles in the categories listed above exist as little more than stubs, many still completely unsourced. If you genuinely think it does not satisfy criteria for inclusion go ahead and take it to AfD where it will get more attention rather than in this bizarre little corner of wiki where nobody seems to look. In the meantime if you insist on continuing the discussion here I will notify editors who have experience of this type of article individually as article alerts are currently down. Basement12 (T.C) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left messages at User talk:Andrwsc and User talk:Parutakupiu, both longtime members of the Olympics project who helped draw up the manual os style for this article type, and User talk:Bib, founder of the paralympics taskforce, as they may be able to show where previous discussions and decisions on notability have occured. Basement12 (T.C) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability does seem to have been discussed a number of times for similar Olymipcs articles. (See archived deletion discussions.) It seems these articles have only been deleted if the nation did not compete at the Olympics that spesific year. For example, the European Union member states did not compete at the 2004 Olympics, and so the European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics was deleted. The articles where the nation did compete a specific year, have been kept. I'm not sure exactly why they have been kept, but I agree that they should be kept. Great Britain have competed at the Winter Paralympics 10 times, and I vote yes for that each time is notable enough for its own article. The Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world, and the Paralympics the second biggest. Great Britain compete at the Olympics and the Paralympics every four years, with its top olympic and paralympic athletes. Bib (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, the European Union member states did not compete at the 2004 Olympics, what an extraordinary and completely inaccurate statement. The 2004 Summer Olympics were held in Greece ( an EU state) and Greece competed as did every other state that was then a member of the EU. I suggest that Bib checks the facts. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that what Bib was refering to, as everyone else seems to have realised, was that there was no European Union team; Greece competed as Greece, France as France etc - Basement12 (T.C) 10:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be possible to find two sources of the kind that satisfy notability such as I suggest at the end of my comment below. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'd like to jump in here. It is good to take a fresh look at the sources given the question of notability. As I read the notability guidelines it says that sources must be reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in more than a passing or trivial way. Further the guidelines state:

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large to support a claim of notability."

What are the sources that the article relies on? I would agree with Diderot that for the purpose of this discussion we must rule out the Classification sources as these do not directly address GB at the 1992 Winter Paralympics, but are instead intended to explain the information that follows. That leaves us with the following sources:

• The first is a Paralympics site and specifically the athletes bios
• Second is the Irish Constitution
• Third is an article in the BBC about an Irish skier added to the 2010 GB team (to address the issue of North Ireland's participation w/ Great Britain at the Paralympics)
• Fourth is the medal table for this Paralympics posted to the British Paralympic website,
• Fifth is a write up about British Paralympic history posted to the British Paralympic website,
• Sixth is an article about British Paralympic involvement in the 2006 Winter Games (the connection is a table at the end of the article with British medalists from the 1992 Games).

When we run these sources through the notability guidelines I think it is safe to say that the sources are reliable and I feel that they are secondary given WP's definition. The question in my mind is do the sources cover the topic in more than a trivial manner? The article relies heavily on the athlete's biographies at the Paralympics site. The link [1] goes directly to a list of every GB athlete at the 1992 Winter Paralympics. The editor relied on the site to support how many competitiors from Team GB and where they competed. I feel that this site does cover the topic substantially, in fact wholly.

Without having read it I would assume that the Irish constitution does not cover the specific 1992 Winter Paralympics but may address something of the issue of NI participation on British Olympic/Paralympic teams. Still coverage is trivial in my opinion.

Same can be said for the third source since it does not mention the 1992 Games at all.

I think the medal table article that lists British medalists along with national medal rankings for each Paralympic Games is topical and covers the information in more than a trivial or passing manner.

There are a couple of paragraphs devoted specifically to the 1992 Winter and Summer Paralympic Games in the fifth site about British Paralympic history. Specific discussion is made of funding for the team and the estblishment of the British Paralympic Committee. I would say that the coverage is more than trivial.

The sixth article does mention the 1992 Games in a table at the end of the article but this is very much a passing comment.

As I see it, and this is completely my opinion, we have three references (athlete bios, medal table, and British Paralympic history) that specifically discuss the 1992 Winter Paralympics in more than a trivial way. All three are secondary sources and credible. From this stand point I would say the sources support notability according to the WP guidelines.

On a different note, I don't feel that this article currently meets the GA Criteria though. The Lead brings up information that is not found in the body of the article. Specifically the ₤500,000 governement grant and the North Ireland issue is not addressed in the body of the article. Also the classification information is in the body of the article but not in the Lead. I think this should be remedied if the article is to be considred for GA. Thank you for your time and consideration, I welcome further comments on what I've brought up here. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your comments on GA status, the NI issue is something I'd rather not include at all but something that has been required to stop various nationalistic arguments about the use of GB, as such a brief mention in the lead, where the team's name is first brought up, is all it deserves (you've previously not had an issue this on GAs you've reviewed yourself). The funding paragraph is only a single sentence, it could be placed in its own section but personally I'd say that would be slightly pointless. You're entirely right on the classification not being in the lead, i'll add the info that athletes had to be in one of the disability classifications to the lead. Basement12 (T.C) 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Basement, I understand that the information may not be extensive enough for its own section. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, specifically for examining the references re notability. That is the discussion we need to have. I would like to give my opinions of the three references you listed as establishing notability. First I want to say that we evaluate notability based on what sources are currently provided, not those that may very well exist and that are not currently included.

The medal table and British paralympic history sources come from the British Paralympic Association, which is not independent. Their web site states as their purpose:

The British Paralympic Association (BPA) is a registered charity which is responsible for selecting, preparing, entering, funding and managing Britain's teams at the Paralympic Games and Paralympic Winter Games.

The athlete bios from the Paralympic Movement is another source not independent enough since they organize and run the games, they are the paralympic games. It is a superset of the British team, the organization to which it belongs. To say it can show notability would be like saying that content at the NFL web site showed the notability of an NFL team. This type of source could be used to justify notability for any team belonging to any league etc.

Some examples of independent sources would be newspapers, magazines, or studies in journals. This doesn't have to be The London Times, of course. Even something fairly specific or local, like a magazine dedicated to issues of the disabled. Or a hometown newspaper of one of the British athletes that won a medal in the games. The article just doesn't have sources like this offering substantial coverage (guideline wording) about the article subject. And that is enough to justify the banner and therefore fail the article unless the sourcing is improved. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that your dispute with my assertions is that the sources listed (specifically the International Paralympic Committee and the British Paralympic Association) do not meet the secondary source criterium? Is that what you mean by it not being "independent"? I want to clarify what guideline is being referenced before I make an argument that doesn't hit the central point. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean independent as referred to in the general notability guideline-- "not affiliated[2] with the subject". Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the BBC independent enough? It is cited a few times in the article. The general notability guideline does not requires that all references in an article must be independent. It only requires that some independent sources exist. Roger (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

H1nkles has commented on this source; I agree with him that it is not a substantial mention. I think you should reread the general notability guideline as I think you have misread it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, I understand the need for sources that remain independent of the actual event. I still believe though that the nations that participate at each Paralympics are notable and merit articles of their own. That said I've found a few more independent sites that reference Great Britain's invovlement in the 1992 Winter Paralympics and do so in more than a trivial way. A broader discussion in a neutral forum will need to be held to establish notability on the vast number of articles that fall into this category. I don't think anyone really wants to rehash this argument on another GAR or article talk page. This discussion needs the light of a larger audience. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree those sources pass for notability. Thank you for seeing my point that we need some independent sources to pass it for GA. I use the notability banner to do this. I may have been a little too strong in my initial comment. And I certainly am not bringing up the issue of the article as a class. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jh12 I have added some details about the alpine skiing performances from articles of The Times archived through LexisNexis. I noticed additional articles from that newspaper and at least one from The Independent covering the funding issues faced by the British Paralympic Association and the British athletes in 1992. I respect Diderot's adherence to the notability guideline, but I think it's a stretch to say that a nation's Paralympic and Olympic performances are not covered in significant sources. Notability asks that we "consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be."[1] In this case, I believe we are dealing with a major sporting event of national and international significance whose results are recorded as part of historical record and frequently receives coverage from reliable sources. In my opinion, it is a poor candidate for WP:Afd. --Jh12 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, I don't know if a topic such as this would be. For example I don't remember how much coverage in the press the paralympics got in 1992, nor in England. But really, I brought up the notability issue because I felt an article which doesn't have a couple of independent sources isn't GA quality, (many reviewers will agree with this) and the unresolved notability banner is a valid reason not to pass an article. In fact, it can be quick failed. Perhaps my original comment was too strong. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break

I think the question of notability has been well and truly dealt with by the addition of extra sources so hopefully the actual reassessment can now take place in this section. Basement12 (T.C) 13:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Renomination/listing Taking into account that Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics was much bigger, I think that this article is of the same caliber as the one I've mentioned above, it's indepth, got great soureces, and isn't written poorly. Buggie111 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support per Buggie111, article fits criteria, notability issues have been resolved, no need to be delisted. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support per reasons given by Buggie111 and H1nkles. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons given by Hamiltonstone. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of objecting, but, having given the article a good look-over, I have to Support Buggie111's support. Adam Hillman (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no question that the notability issue has now been addressed. However, that wasn't the main reason(s) that the original reviewer failed this at GA. It was mainly to do with criterion 3, regarding breadth of coverage. In addition i would point out that it fails criterion 1 in respect of WP:LEAD - the lead of the article actually contains a heap of information that belongs in a currently non-existent section of the body text. The lead is meant to be a summary, and it present it is not. Sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to jump on you just for opposing but what would you say is missing from the article that means it isn't broad in its coverage? There has been extra material added since that review which didn't say that it wasn't broad but wanted to have some calculated statistics added. As for the lead the information not summarised elsewhere it is on the team name's use of Great Britain (as opposed to UK or GB&NI), this is only included to prevent arguments, see Talk:Great Britain at the Olympics for a selection of them, placing it anywhere else as well would be unnecessary (i'd rather not have it the article at all) and two lines on funding which could go in their own section but I'd say that was a bit pointless. Basement12 (T.C) 07:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of pts. Might get back later. Re the lead: it doesn't matter what the reasons were to put that text in, it just shouldn't be in the lead - it should be in a background section in the body text somewhere. See WP:LEAD - the lead summarises the article. The article may well follow WP:OLYMOSNAT but that isn't going to help it reach GA per se: that particular guideline is pretty 'bare bones' and covers infobox, medals etc. A GA is going to have prose that discussed all main points - be broad in its coverage. The article does that to some degree. I understand YellowMonkey's suggestions. As long as the comparisons between figures is straighforward and does not involve complex calculations, they could be reasonable. The article does not have any coverage from the media generally, such as coverage of the team's achievements as a whole. This could include coverage in sport-specific magazines. I understand that paralympic coverage is limited in mainstream media, but i find it hard to believe it would receive no coverage in magazines of, eg. cross-country skiing. Have these types of sources been searched? hamiltonstone (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to have more to add to the article but bearing in mind that this event occured in 1992 any such team and sport-specific coverage isn't going to be found online, if it exists at all; at this point the Winter Paralympics were not a massive event even compared to this year's Games. If anyone has 18-year old copies of Cross Country Skier magazine lying around I'd be surprised so the best that could be hoped for would be a newspaper article giving a summary of GBs results/achievements across the Games and I can't find any, e.g. Google news archive search. I don't like the idea of adding the stats suggested by YellowMonkey, I believe it is bordering on violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#STATS; unless a statistic is reported by a source how do we decide what is significant to calculate? Regarding the WP:LEAD guideline -"Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions", I think this is an article where common sense should be applied. At the moment I'm not intending to change this as 5 separate GA reviews have already accepted the reasons for the same text appearing solely in the lead. Basement12 (T.C) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The citizenship stuff may be what you are talking about in terms of material only in the lead, but other points are in the lead that should be in the body text. This is not a case for one of those exceptions, and if I'd seen them in another GA my view would be the same. I'd pass this without yellowmonkey's stats, but not without the body text being expanded and then being properly summarised in the lead. I don't see why the sources have to be online to count. As to who would have old copies of Cross Country skier or whatever, the two answers are (a) old cross country skiers (b) a library. But if I'm the lone oppose, then go ahead and tick it - i don't think it's as bad as Yellow Monkey did. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree in retrospect with Hamiltonstone that the lead is not proper as it contains information that belongs in the article proper (ignoring the citizenship stuff). In fact, this is an awfully big lead for such a small article. As for breadth, without searching old sports magazines for coverage, we may very well be missing some main aspect of the topic. Regrettably, I've withdrawn my support. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are three paragraphs in the lead; one deals with the citizenship issue (a special case as previously discussed) and eligibility to compete (classifications); one deals with number of competitors and results (i.e. what is contained in the rest of the article); the final one is a single sentence. I can only assume to satisy WP:LEAD you'd like this final paragraph under a separate heading? I don't see what can be missing from the article in terms of breadth. The only "main aspect" of the topic is to detail results of the GB team at the Games, which it does so how can a main aspect be missing? Basement12 (T.C) 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. I believe the article meets the GA criteria and is at a level comparable to other GAs that have been passed in this subject area, such as Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics or Great Britain at the 2010 Winter Paralympics. It provides suitably broad coverage within the scope of the article and I believe if, as suggested, any "main aspect" were missing it would have been seen somewhere in the sources used - Basement12 (T.C) 10:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nominators (and the original reviewers) don't get to give support or opposes at GAR by tradition. When an article is brought here, third parties adjucate.

As to the lead. Yes, the last paragraph, and also the sentence about top 10 finishes are not in the article.

As to breadth. Well maybe a main aspect (a big story about one atheletic performance) or also one or more major points (of which the article can only omit two or three for GA) may be missing by skipping an entire and important class of sources. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article - the top ten finishes are included throughout the article, in their relevant sections, and totalled in the lead. Nothing in WP:LEAD says that there is anything wrong with this. Major points, where in the criteria are they covered? Again the only major points/main aspects that fall within the scope of this article are the results of the team. Results of individuals that could be considered main aspects are few and far between, are mostly restricted to medal winning performances (or are more widely covered by the media than just appearing in sport specific journals, e.g someone like Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards). Anything that could be missing is going to be trivial or merely interesting and not a main aspect/major point. For the record as this is not a vote my use of support is as valid as anyone elses and was merely used to give a summary of my opinion on why it should be listed (we've come a long way from the initial request at the top). Basement12 (T.C) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it is OK to use the lead for the summarizing the results in the tables, though I suspect the summary belongs in the body too.

I disagree about whether there may be major points/main aspects in the untapped sources. The article is about the team's performance-- but not just the results, but the how and why of each athlete's performance, or the why not. Articles in a specialized sports magazine may have in depth coverage of exactly these for some athletes or the team as a whole; and even perhaps the story of how the athlete trained or obstacles overcome. Depending on the significance of the events, e.g. how major a story it was at the time, it could even be a main aspect of the team's performance. Certainly the how and why of each athlete's perfomance could be major points.

See the footnote under breadth which says that not every major or minor point must be covered. That leaves some room for interpretation, but I usually let a few major points go by before failing an article. I think other reviewers are usually more restrictive.

WP:NOTAVOTE doesn't say that polling is prohibited, rather WP:NOTAVOTE says that polling is not to be used as a substitute for discussion and consensus building. And that's what we have been doing here. Rather the relevant guideline is WP:VOTESTACK. I thought you might be votestacking by notifying Wikiproject Olympics and the Paralympics Task Force of this GAR, but not the reviewer of the article--the person you have the conflict with! That you cast support for your own article in clear violation of GAR tradition and common sense, makes it clear to me that you are indeed votestacking. Please erase your vote. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I had already notified the original reviewer, see this edit, as you told you when you left a note on his talk page (shown here). I notified the relevant wikiprojects and some of their members not to get their support for GA (none of them actually voted) but rather for help in convincing you of the articles notability as at one point you seemed to be suggesting the article was worthy of deletion. Not that notifying them of a discussion relevant to the project would be in anyway against the rules. I find your accusation of votestacking nothing short of offensive; I may be going against a "tradition" but frankly your last comments are misguided, rude and in violation of a number of guidelines including Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As for erasing my vote - why? I clearly state that I am the nominator and it is up to whowever closes the reassessment and not you to decide if it is valid or not. Basement12 (T.C) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you indeed did notify the reviewer. My bad, I didn't see the notification or look for their reply as I thought any would be perfunctory. With that piece of information, I am ambivalent whether this is votestacking. However, pointing out what you perceive as a guideline violation is not uncivil in itself. I did assume good faith, but when one perceives multiple instances, good faith is not supposed to be blind faith. Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your tone was without a doubt uncivil and you made accusations based merely on your "perceptions" rather than any facts or rules. You clearly do not fully understand the concept of canvassing/votestacking if you believe the neutral tone messages placed on relevant (by relevant here I mean projects whose banners appear on the talk page and may have had knowledgable users who could add informed opinions either way) project talk pages that dealt mostly with the side issue of notability (an issue raised by yourself and not supported by any other user) and not any vote on GA status could count as such. Despite realising your mistake you then stop short of an apology. Before making any similar accusations in the future I'd seriously suggest you familiarise yourself with the guidelines properly and check your facts. At this point I'm choosing not to interact with you any further in this discussion; you seem to be set in your opinions and to have an issue with me. I shall leave it up to the rest of the community to decide the fate of the article Basement12 (T.C) 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A few points as my last words on the subject. I have not apologized because I am not convinced that I was in error about the whole issue of votestacking, (the notifying of so many Wikiproject Olympics/Paralympics editors who would likely support the article troubles me as well as voting for promotion yourself) but you did notify one who was likely to oppose so there is some doubt now. I also fail to see how I am "set in my opinions" when I, for a time, supported the article's promotion. Anyway I feel the same about you. I'll cast my oppose vote (subject to change if the article is improved) without further comment. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. GAR is not a vote - and I really mean that literally, not in Wikipedia code language. What matters is whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, and editors' views on whether it does and why. The words "support" and "oppose" here are merely shorthands summarizing a viewpoint (and indeed it usual for editors to summarize their viewpoint more precisely with phrases such as "Endorse fail" or "List as GA"). Consequently it has always been the case (in the c. 3 years in which I have been contributing) that comments from article editors are welcome at a GAR. Such comments are clearly not as objective as those made by uninvolved reviewers, and are given less weight accordingly. But they do not need to be struck. Votestacking has never been an issue here, as far as I recall, as GAR really is not a vote. Geometry guy 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that what you describe as summaries of comments here are in fact informal polling. If they were not, people would summarize with words other than delist or list or comment. We don't see article needs better sourcing or the article is adequately sourced as summaries for posts. Now the decision is not simply a poll, nor is the process, and polling doesn't occur for all GARs. But this polling is not in conflict with WP:NOTAVOTE as NOTAVOTE doesn't prohibit polling, but polling that replaces discussion and consensus building, which still takes place here when polling occurs.

And I am against the article nominator participating in these polls. Not against commenting, not against offering an opinion, but participating in the polling. And I think that is supported by our history. If it is not, please show me a failed GA brought here before this one where the nominator made a list or delist "summary". How far back in the archives do we need to go? I looked though the last complete archive page and couldn't find one. Which is surprising if this were not a poll, certainly some nominator believed the the article they nominated is worthy of listing and summarized it so. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. For failed GANs the nominator is usually the editor opening the community GAR and hence their statement already frames the discussion. In general article editors contribute to GAR discussions regularly, see e.g. Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 in the most recent archive. Let me reassure you that as one of the few editors who closes GARs on a regular basis, I read the comments and the article, and do not regard it as a vote or even an informal poll.

I would not discourage any contribution to the process - indeed I wish there were more contributions. Geometry guy 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)