Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nero/1

Nero

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

Result: Article problems have not been resolved. Discussion of such is dead in the water, and all have seemingly lost interest. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has degraded significantly since its Good Article selection and now is poorly written. It needs an extensive re-write by someone with experience of the topic and who can commit time to do this. Personally I don't think it is even close to meeting GA status at this time and minor changes will probably not fix this. Stingray Trainer (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stingray Trainer: I am doing a copy-edit but can you be more specific?Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: To start with the introduction reads like a long list of short statements/facts rather than a narrative overview of the article. There is duplication (e.g. murder of his mother is repeated) and the sentence structure leaves a lot to be desired. This is why I felt it needs to be done by someone with extension knowledge of Nero rather than myself. The rest of the article is in much better shape and mostly needs a tidy and minor improvements to bring it back up to a high standard. Stingray Trainer (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stringray Trainer: If I understand you correctly, you feel it should be re-assessed for failing 1b(lede) with minor copy editing? What about the excessive use of primary sources? I've tagged these in some places, intending to improve the sourcing when I've completed the read through. I think using Suetonius as a source, without secondary sources is a major problem (and the article is templated for it, so this should also be considered for GAR- wouldnt articles templated for sourcing issues usually be quick failed?) I agree with you that it does not currently meet GA criteria. I am not too familiar with the procedure though - would we have to remove it from GA and then renominate it, or could it be improved while this discussion is open? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stingray Trainer, as nominator at GAR, it is your responsibility to notify the main contributors to the article (if any remain active) and also the various related WikiProjects (they are listed on the article talk page): see WP:GAR for the instructions on how this process works. Seraphim System, since this is a community reassessment, anyone who has taken part in the evaluation may not close it, and the article may not be delisted unless the consensus is to do so (and is so assessed by the closer). The ideal end of a GAR, per the instructions, is that the article is brought to meet the GA criteria. As this is not always possible, articles do get delisted with some regularity, but community reassessments, which this is, tend to be a fairly lengthy process. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: I agree that it would be quick failed if this was a new recommendation, but I am also not sure for the process for re-assessment (i.e. can you quick fail it?) - hence why I put this to a community reassessment. As per BlueMoonsets points it apparently appears I am required to do a lot more than just nominate this article - this will happen in due course, but a) I don't think there are regular contributors to notify; and b) I don't have time to do that this week due to work, but should get around to it shortly. As per your point reference Suetonius - I'm sure there is a policy reference this sort of thing, but whilst it is technically primary research,it is also a source that is widely quoted as fact (due to a general lack of other evidence) and may be acceptable. Hopefully we can get some advice. Stingray Trainer (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my understanding of this is that it is still WP:OR. Yes, Suetonius is widely discussed but we need to stick to the analysis of secondary sources, not our own analysis of primary texts. So while it is ok to cite Suetonius, the analaysis and propositions need to be cited to secondary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stingray Trainer: now that I've done some work on it I can say more—some of the details from Suetonius I have not been able to find in secondary sources. They are not emphasized anyway—for example, insinuations that Nero may have poisoned Claudius. Instead of working backwards to source the primary as it is written in the articles, I am preferring to follow the account in secondary sources. I have rewritten the family section. Just thought you should take a look because I've done some major editing and let me know what you think. (I'm saving the lede for last.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stingray Trainer I've done a lot of work on this article. There is still more to do (including revise the lede) but I have restructured to make the chronology clearer, I've removed some content which was sourced to primary but either not discussed in secondary analysis, or the secondary analysis had different conclusions. I have tried to follow the secondary sources for the analysis and to resolve issues of due weight (the sources I used most were Shotter, Griffin, Champlin, Malitz and Scullard). Can you look it over and let me know where you see problems? (except the lede). This is a high traffic article so it would be nice if we can fix the issues instead of just demote it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System, you would be more likely to get a reply if you spelled Stingray Trainer's name correctly in your pings (Stingray, not Stringray). Generally, a red link when the user's sig and other pings have been blue indicates a typo somewhere or something likely to interfere with the notification you're looking for; preview is your friend. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thanks, I think I fell asleep promptly after posting this, this article really needed a lot of work as it was almost entirely sourced at primary sources, and so far I have been the only one working on it. There is still more to do, but it's really not ever ideal to have only one person working on it. The premise of Wikipedia isn't that we won't make any errors, I appreciate your fixing a typo but Occam's razor is helpful here- red links don't show up in my color scheme which is kind of annoying, I will look into fixing this - but it's not because I didn't look over the comment after I posted it, or that I don't understand the concept of a red link, that is a lot to assume, but thanks for fixing this one. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Actually I see the username typos haven't actually been fixed, so I fixed them myself. I think it's pretty obvious that not every color scheme displays red links correctly and that I would have fixed it myself if I'd seen redlinks. I know what a red link is, why would I just leave it like that if I had seen them? Obviously, if I am pinging, it is because I want a response after putting many hours into improving the article. For future reference, usually when someone sees a typo like this, they can fix the typo and just leave a note that it has been fixed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System, Wikipedia pings only work if they're added with a valid sig in the same edit, so correcting the typo won't get the ping to work retroactively, since there isn't a new sig with the correcting edit. My previous post should have gotten a ping through to Stingray Trainer, so that should be set. Just so you know. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to know, thank you Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stingray Trainer, Seraphim System, and BlueMoonset: it's been more than a month since anything has happened on this review page. The article still has cleanup tags for overuse of primary sources, and use of broken or outdated sources. The "secondary sources" list includes a Russian docudrama(!), a link to an archived page from a geocities site, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Nero. There are three citation needed tags in the article, and a load more paragraphs in the body of the article without any inline citations. If these problems haven't been fixed in two months since this review began, I am doubtful that they are going to be in the immediate future. Thoughts? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 27 days later (or 28?) since Caeciliusinhorto asked for a reply. Nothing has been received, unfortunately. It's probably time to delist. Let's try once more, otherwise the shiny badge shall be no more (who said I was such a poet, eh?) My name continues to not be dave (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems I list in my previous comment still haven't been fixed. I would agree that it's time to delist. Do you want to do the honours, My name continues to not be dave? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Will do. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I have been on hiatus. I did a lot of work on the article, but there is yet more that needs to be done. It is a high traffic article and I was hoping that others would discuss/contribute instead of simply delisting it because it wasn't done. It was a lot of work! But if no one else is interested I will continue when I get back to editing and re-nominate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]