Jump to content

Talk:Gilbert Perreault

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGilbert Perreault has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 20, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 11, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Shouldn't there be some meantion of his weird, icey realationship with the Sabres since his retirement? --69.255.193.247 16:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If any such mention is properly sourced so as to avoid overt POV, sure. Ravenswing 16:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a biased article.MikeFlynn52 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]

The information in the article seems to be ok. The issues are

There are other sentencees which can be imporved along similar techniques and motifs. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of the points. For example, "Team Canada" is the name by which the squad is near-universally known, and it is no more slang than referring to "Rhode Island" or "Los Angeles" by those names, neither of which is the actual legal name of those entities.  Ravenswing  05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Indian cricket team is not called "Team India" in articles although it is quite ocmmon among the Indian press. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page ...

[edit]

I appreciate your interest in Gilbert Perreault. I spent a lot of time last month returning to Buffalo to research his article as well as The French Connection (hockey) to get them both cited well enough to be WP:GAs. I am glad someone else cares about these articles. However, removing sources that support facts that are not commonly known to wikipedia readers is not appropriate in my mind. I have reverted many of your changes and this ist the net result of our joint efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be appropriate in your mind, but it's appropriate per policy. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). Items of readily provable fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations. Furthermore, the extensive references to the Fog Game are inappropriate, given that the game is not itself about Perreault and he had no particularly overwhelming impact in it. Finally, I worry that you might be crossing the WP:OWN line. I likewise appreciate the interest of other editors in this article, am glad other editors care about it and have spent time researching the edits I myself have made in it. I hope other editors are similarly invested in the articles about which they themselves care. Nonetheless, no single one of us has any more authority or influence over an article than another ... which is just as well, since my first edits to this article happened a year and a half before yours.  Ravenswing  03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your style of I am so sure I am right I am going to revert in whole instead of going item by item and analyzing deeply each thing that I replaced. Your haphazard total revert even delete an incredibly useful template. Taking the I'm right and I am going to threaten you with an WP:OWN challenge is the completely wrong approach to take. Please reconsider each single item you removed especially valuable templates you carelessly removed. I took a lot of time with a thoughtful compromise edit and your approach is not thought of very highly. Since this was a newly minted WP:GA you should seriously reconsider your reversion. It is common to cite a source for unlikely to be challenged statistics because it is helpful to the reader. You should keep in mind that at one point the article said he was a six time All-star. Some sources have it wrong. Even though you should not challenge that he is a 9-time All-star you should not remove such a citation. Please respond at my talk page. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to complete my thoughts because the library closed at 9PM central (2AM UTC) last night. It also appears that I was in a huffy mood at the end of the day yesterday. Citations are not reserved for things likely to be challenged by experts. Basically, they are used to provide references for most interesting facts in an article. If I told you someone scored over 500 goals you might find that to be an incredible claim if you are not a sports fan. An article should be written with main page exposure in mind. Suppose this becomes a FA some day. If you look at most sports FACs they are chock full of citations for things that we all know are true. An article will have a citation for the fact that a team won the Stanley cup in a given year and one for the fact that it moved to another arena in a given year. This is the way proper citation works. The challenge rule you are cited does not mean that you only cite something if you think it might belong in Ripley's Believe it or Not. Please respond since I know you are online. I will begin reverting this after noon if there is no response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statements. Your argument relies on vague speculation such as whether someone might challenge that Perreault scored 500 goals or that he was a nine-time All-Star. Quite aside from the obvious fact that no one here has ever done either, such speculation doesn't override the policy governing the use of inline citations. Beyond that, of course I believe that I'm right -- it would be quite incorrect for me to make changes I felt were wrong -- and that believing you're crossing the line into WP:OWN is a very long way from "threatening" a "challenge" on those grounds, for which I'd be interested in you pointing out where I said anything of the sort.  Ravenswing  18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with RG on this: his career stats are included in the article. They're backed up by a link to hockeydb and others stats websites could easily be added as well (I've always preferred hockeydb because it includes minor, junior and college stats). Data like that is mundane, qualitative and easily accessible. I'd be more worried about citing statements such as he also plays on occasion with the Buffalo Sabres Alumni Hockey Team for charity events. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it is true, yet I don't see anything that would prove it. ccwaters 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unlike his stats, that's a fact that is not to be found in a hundred hockey books or fifty websites, each and every time invariably.  Ravenswing  19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to revert item by item with comment. Give me about a half hour. The point is that facts at WP are highly suspect by the general populous and thus notable fact citations are being reverted. I will attempt to do so minimally. Hopefully places that had redundant citations will have fewer, but facts that are worth boasting about must be cited, for the sake of the reader who should not just trust us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. in case you think I lie about the 6 time AS source, see http://www.sabresalumni.com/2001/perreault.php3 .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to need more than a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time; any inline citations of non-controversial statistical fact will just be reverted right back. Uncontroversial items of readily-provable statistical fact don't uniquely become needful of inline citations just because they're "boast" worthy. I'll be happy to raise this to the Wikiproject for a consensus.  Ravenswing  20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing & I often disagree but lately we seem to be agreeing more and more. I do believe he is right in this case. Having inline citations for the sake of having them is not productive and undesireable when they can easily be covered by the general references at the bottom of the page. Only if something is controversial or possibly unbelieveable/challengable should it have inline citation with a few exceptions for other reasons such as direct quotes. --Djsasso 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TonyTheTiger simply because articles should be written assuming the reader knows nothing and therefore citations will help the reader know that what they are reading is true/verified. Facts with numbers that are not cited are possibly likely to be challenged but are also easy targets for sneaky vandalism. T Rex | talk 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, inline citations don't prevent sneaky vandalism. Editors who pay attention prevent sneaky vandalism. I could not, off the top of my head, quote the precise number of goals and assists Perreault scored in his career (500-someodd and 800-someodd), and inline citations don't jog anyone's memory any further. Secondly, of course the statistical facts should have citations ... the general references and external links at the bottom of the page, which already exist.  Ravenswing  01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it easier to find out where exactly which facts come from where without the reader having to go through each source checking to see where the fact came from. Sneaky vandalism often does slip through articles even if the article does have many people watching it. T Rex | talk 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If his goal is to eventually be featured it is a very fine line between having enough and having to many. Alot of FAs get shot down because of over use of inline citations. As pointed out by Ravenswing only ones that can't be covered by general references at the bottom, ie challengable facts, need inline citations. --Djsasso 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, T Rex, if someone has to have an inline citation because he can't figure out how to look up a routine statistical fact from the general reference links, he shouldn't be editing an article for errors. That being said, this is slightly moot. The policy on the use of inline citations is unambiguous, and this article's violated that.  Ravenswing  15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about editors, I was talking about the average reader who comes to Wikipedia who wants to find information and inline citations help this reader find information quickly. T Rex | talk 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no. Inline citations do not help the reader find information quickly. Putting the information in the article in the first place helps the reader find information quickly.  Ravenswing  12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion offer

[edit]

I would be happy to try and help resolve the outstanding issue if someone wants to summarize the dispute. Please note: I am not looking for reports of editor behavior - i simply want to know what the dispute was/is over. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jmfangio. Is the dispute over whether each sentence in a GA article should be footnoted? Please just summarize the dispute. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 06:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. My position is that Tony has flooded the article with unnecessary inline citations; to quote myself from above, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). Items of readily provable, uncontroversial, statistical fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations. That being said, the other comments in from WP:HOCKEY regulars support that viewpoint.  Ravenswing  16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The style use of inline citations is an issue often dealt with by those at Featured articles. If you can't find your answer at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. -- Jreferee T/C 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given feedback we got at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1, which says that the citations are helpful to international wikipedians (which was my point in the debate), edits like this seem destructive given the debate we are having about whether citation should be removed. I had reduced the citation level to what I thought was the bare minimum for a this GA. The citations that were taken out reduce this article below the WP:GA level, IMO. This article would not pass at WP:GAR given this edit. It should be reverted, IMO. The edit was contrary to the feedback we have received and my experience as the lead author of 2 WP:FAs, 3 WP:FLs, 29 WP:GAs and 3 WP:GACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to summarize the debate, I would say the debate is over whether what I see as the minimal citation level or what User:Ravenswing sees as the minimal citation level is more appropriate. His most recent edit is pretty much the crux of the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I wouldn't be comfortable implying that the single reviewer who addressed the subject at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1 represented any degree of consensus. Beyond that, gosh, I've several thousand edits myself, I've been an active member of the WP:HOCKEY Wikiproject for several years and the author of the project's player notability criteria, and my first edits on this article predate yours by a year and a half. Now might we stick to the merits of the argument, rather than claim "Mine is bigger than yours" as any sort of justification? If there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline granting more of a say to those brandishing massive edit counts, I'm ignorant of it.  Ravenswing  08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If don't get any resolution here, which I hope will come from another 3rd party (User:Jreferee), we can either go to WP:GAR or WP:DR from here. But the merits in my opinion are adequately summarized as an argument over your edit from yesterday and I am willing to argue the merits in either forum if necessary. At GAR, we run the risk of losing WP:GA status on the article, but unlike either of the talk pages or WP:PR we are guaranteed to get much feedback. I hope a second outside opinion will help us come to some resolution however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... as to that, if insufficient feedback here is generated, either forum will do. If GA status could be lost over a dispute as to how many inline citations this article should have, then its status was a lot shakier than that.  Ravenswing  18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would concede the article was not one of my better GAs because so much information existed before I got involved. I do much better with articles from scratch. I think GAR may be the better course in terms of what is best for the article. DR would be the better course in terms of what the best policy issues are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAR closed

[edit]

The GAR observed no variation from the criteria which only stipulate minimum requirements for inline citation. GAR is not the place to resolve editorial disputes, so I have closed the discussion. The article retains its GA status. Please consider using requests for comment instead. Geometry guy 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

I claim that after I did a lot of work in late July and early August to get this article promoted to WP:GA, User:Ravenswing started removing a lot of the details in the article. Most of the disagreement relates to how heavily an article should be cited. If I cited multiple points from the same source separately he removed many of the multiple citations. I did not totally disagree and relented to many of the changes. However, as he continued this, I began to feel he was taking destructive action. We have gone back and forth on our talk pages. The debate provide great fodder to derail my WP:RFA on WP:OWN issues. We agreed to accept outside opinions but neither WP:WPBIO nor WP:HOCKEY gave any feedback on their talk pages. We then posted at WP:PR and got one response that supported my opinion that greater citation detail was a positive for our international audience. I brought the article to WP:GAR, where there was strong support to readd citations, but they sent us to WP:RFC to get some consensus regarding edits like this September 24th edit made after the September 21st feedback at PR. In its current state (which I consider vandalized by User:Ravenswing) it is not the greatest GA. If I was using a scale where 95 is a WP:TFA, 90 is new WP:FA promotion, 75 is a new WP:GA listing or a WP:FAR keep, and 65 is a WP:GA/R keep, I would rate this article as about a 70. Basically, I am calling for support to revert the removals in the edit documented here and make some sort of clear statement that removing these kinds of details degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. I am calling for consensus on the debate about the direction of this article and have exhausted many avenues.

Traynor claims as follows: I removed no citations; I simply trimmed back an overwhelming number of inline citations that were as thick as every sentence in spots, each and every one an item of uncontroversial statistical fact already referenced below in a list of citations that I very properly did not touch. Tony's overeager inline citations flout official policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). (By contrast, Wikipedia:When to cite is an essay with no force as policy or guideline, and in any event does not focus on inline citations.) That he characterizes this as vandalism verges on personal attack -- given that I was editing this article a year and a half before he ever noticed it, should I claim that he vandalized my work? -- and if he feels that this issue impacted his RFA, his ambitions would be better served by correcting those actions of his which caused a raft of Oppose votes than by forum shopping. A GAR nomination on an article for which he pushed for GA status in the first place smacks of WP:POINT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tony cut and pasted my comments from GAR, so I don't have much to add beyond this: his claim that there was "strong support for readding citations" rests on two users other than himself and T Rex, who has been extensively heard on the issue here, and whose comments were made before my response to Tony's argument.  Ravenswing  23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to call your attention to the exchange above where it seemed it was agreed that GAR was the next step, but after responses started coming in supporting readding citations, Ravenswing for some reason started complaining that GAR was not a good place ("smacks of WP:POINT") to go causing to be booted to RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Simple. I was under the impression that GAR was for review and comment on good articles. I did not anticipate that you were going to challenge the status that you yourself proposed for the article, and that's where WP:POINT comes in. I apologize for my misimpression of GAR, and for my failure to predict your intent.  Ravenswing  05:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your explanation explains nothing:
  • I was under the impression that GAR was for review and comment on good articles.-It is. In fact, is is for review and comment on articles whose good status is under fire. I feel the edits that are at issue here have detracted from the quality of the article such that a reconsideration of its status was appropriate.
  • I did not anticipate that you were going to challenge the status that you yourself proposed for the article-This statement means little or nothing. I did not propose a status. I had nominated the article for good article successfully. I place my own or articles from my project under review at GAR when I feel their quality is questionably good. I feel the edits you have made to the article make this an issue.
You're weasel wording, and rather clumsily to boot. I can think of no circumstance where nominating an article for GA status is not "proposing a status."  Ravenswing  23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you refer to policy that is not relevant. If you look at my user page you will see I have been involve in numerous GA nomination discussions and I have never before heard the term "proposing a status" used in association with nominating or listing a candidate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's where WP:POINT comes in-The policy you are pointing to actually points out your own bad faith. We have been having extreme difficulty in getting opinions on our debate. We have been at various fora where no response a common outcome. We entered the GAR forum where there is always a clear outcome and you made a complaint which stopped proceedings from rendering a clear outcome and sent us back to a forum where it seems no response may be likely. This is an example of WP:POINT gaming the system violation #8. I do not see any particular violation in this policy applicable to my actions. If you have any particular point you think is relevant please note it.
Perhaps you should review the commonly held definitions of "bad faith." The one applicable here is gaming the system to achieve your goal. The closing admin on that discussion intimated that GAR is not the proper forum for content disputes. One would think that you would be extremely familiar with that premise, since you are very active in the GA process, and yet you determined that GAR was an appropriate venue nonetheless. That is bad faith.  Ravenswing  23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter that it is bad faith to agree to a discussion in particular forum and then cry bad faith when the debate goes against you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would phrase it more along the lines of forcing your own POV, but yes, that's your ultimate goal, however you can achieve it.  Ravenswing  23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are using a policy incorrectly. POV would be I say Gilbert Perreault is the greatest hockey player ever, and you say no and we go back and forth about content related to this fact/non-fact. We have no debate about facts, just citations thereof.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comments prior to this RFC for those who have not seen all the other places this debate has taken place without ending the debate:
Pro citation readdition:
Against citation readdition:
  • Comment If you are hoping there are more inline citations than are already there, all i can say is oh my god. The article is already way to hard to read because of the little citations everywhere. You absolutely do not need an inline citation for something that there is a general citation for down below. And to be honest Tony it does look an awful lot like WP:OWN and WP:POINT that you keep taking this matter to every forum you possibly can. Taking it to WP:GAR for something you yourself put up for GA pretty much proves the other two. --Djsasso 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, my position is the same as above but Tony was not in violation of WP:POINT by taking this to GAR because there is an ongoing content dispute which may warrant its removal as a GA under Criteria 5 (article must be stable, no edit wars or daily significant changes) of the GA criteria. Also I have found a few things that require citations that aren't cited.
  • In 1976, Canada hosted the first Canada Cup series and boasted what many believe is the greatest Canadian team ever assembled. Who is this many that believe it was the greatest team ever.
  • Career achievements section is unreferenced, how do I know its not all made up?
  • There are a lot of statistics that have no citations, once again how do I know they are not inaccurate, or just plain lies?

T Rex | talk 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not saying citations aren't necessary. But the argument is between inline citations and general references. All the statistics and most of the achievements are covered by citation #1 and #2. If you changed those to general references instead of inline citations it would cover off all the citations necessary for the statistics and the achievements. The 1972 one does need a reference, but again this isn't an argument about references or no references. Its about inline vs general references. --Djsasso 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? GoodDay 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call me and Ravenswing wikifriends. In fact we argue alot more with each other than agree with each other. But based on this comment and a number of comments of yours that I have read in other areas I definitely see why you keep failing RFAs. Heck my arguments with Goodday are legendary so you could hardly call us all wikifriends. We just happen to all work on the hockey project. Not that either of them aren't decent fellows. I would urge you to read and understand WP:CIVIL. --Djsasso 23:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it's just that you're unfamiliar with the Wikiproject, Tony, but unlike in your case with T Rex following you around (shall we draw a similar parallel?), Djsasso, GoodDay and Ccwaters have not been following me around the various fora tossing in MeToos. As even the most cursory search of the Wikiproject would reveal, they and I have failed to see eye to eye on a number of issues, and I quite agree with Dj that a review of WP:CIVIL would be in your best interest ... it is disruptive, uncivil and self-righteous to assume that no one could agree with my position save out of self-interest, and nonsensical to assume that no other Wikiproject regulars follow this article about an expansion era Hall of Famer.  Ravenswing  00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider everybody at Wikipedia 'my friend', since I consider nobody 'my enemy'. I've never met a fellow Wikipedian personally, never been to any conventions. - So, again Tony, what's your point? GoodDay 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting annoying. You have gone from WP:OWN, to WP:POINT, to WP:CIVIL without making a sensible point. Is there a reason why you say T Rex follows me around. He has followed this debate around as it has been ongoing in several locations. He is genuinely concerned about the editorial quality of the project. It seems odd that these are persons concerned with WP:HOCKEY when we could not get any responses to the debate over there. It seems more like they are people called on to support your claim that citing Gilbert Perreault inline like my other 40+ WP:GAs, WP:FAs and WP:FLs is wrong for him but right for the rest. If you guys all in fact work on the same articles you are wikifriends of some sort so where does WP:CIVIL come in? Show me a Hockey article you believe is good that does not have abundant inline citations and I will show you a good WP:GAR candidate. I can not prove any sort of WP:CANVASS, but it seems curious that they all suddenly show up when they didn't at the Hockey talk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering you didn't post this request at the Hockey Talk and that I had to do it, you might want to consider how it looks that you were trying to slide this in without people in the Hockey project noticing. Secondly we are not saying it is good for one and not good for the other. It was YOU who insinuated WP:CANVASS when you have someone who is actually following you around. So don't try and turn this on us, when really its more suspiscious that you have someone following you. So you are friends with every single person in the chicago wikiproject you claim to run? I hardly think that just because you have the same interests that that makes you friends. Or I would be friends with every hockey fan in the world. WP:OWN is you not letting go of things when its clear that you are not in the right. WP:POINT is you going to every forum you can to cry that you aren't getting your way and trying to make a point. WP:CIVIL is you making veiled accusations of WP:CANVASS without any proof. I can actually find you FA's with a less than "abundant" amount of inline citations. In fact I have seen a number fail for having too many inline citations when chunks of the article could have been covered by general references. --Djsasso 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one there commented on this when I placed it there the first time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This gang tackling approach is not very likely confusing anyone. Djasso seems quite confused here since there are no diffs of anyone following me around and there are diffs of most supporters of Ravenswing being connected enough to show up on the top user talk contributors of the same person. There is no one here who I have been involved in significant other debates with or co-editted with on other articles. Please feel free to point out any follows with actual diffs as opposed to libelous unsubstantiated untruths.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should stay on topic and stop trying to make this personal? --Djsasso 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From your response it sounds like when asked to back up your statement you have no facts to point to so you tried to switch the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No actually I am tired of arguing with someone who themself keeps switching the subject each time they are shown how they are wrong. The point is about this article. You can't argue the topic at hand so you are trying to attack the people who disagree with you. Shows alot of maturity. --Djsasso 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get it, do you, Tony? First off, if you really want me to go through all the FA and GA articles you've worked on and strip the excess inline citations from them, I can, but that would (accurately) be seen as a case of Wikistalking. I comment on the articles upon which I comment, and don't on articles upon which I take no notice; my interest in, and knowledge of, Chicago-area landmarks, for instance, is limited. Secondly, your entire basis for insinuating WP:CANVASS is that several people agree with my position, and I don't think I need to belabor how outrageous that is or that you could be tarred with your own brush. Finally, I would have thought you had learned from your several failed RFAs, but the fact that the most recent one failed resoundingly (not only with forty editors Opposing but with many changing to "Strong Oppose" upon hearing more evidence) would suggest that there are things upon which you need to work. WP:OWN issues are among them. Hauling out your oft-repeated GA/FA count as if that means others should kowtow to you is among them. Perhaps you've set your ambitions aside, though.  Ravenswing  21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay lets see if we calm things down a couple hundred notches here. First things first I am an admin, not to throw that in your faces but I hope it keeps people from jumping to the conclusion that I am in any way slanted. Okay, things are getting way to personal in these discussions, with the many accusations that have been flying around here. Whatever your opinion is regarding this article, state it, defend it, and if necessary, fight for it, but do not start arguing points about credibility. You two have both been in Wikipedia along time, and this kind of mudslinging is beneath you both (I'm speaking of Tiger and Traynor). Good faith and civility were thrown out the window a while ago here. Both of you have a fair good number of users who have some sort of issue with how you conduct activities, which is probably more of a reflection of passionate editing than any sort of corruption. So having said that, onto the issue at hand. This really is not, like many of the edit wars I've experienced, a big issue. I am more inclined to agree with that the citations are a little excessive, mostly on the statistical facts, but at the same time he may have gone a little overboard on just how many citations he did take out. And since Tony was the first person to add the citations and improve this article to good article status, I would think that even though the citations may seem a little excessive, that's not really a bad thing. To give an appropriate hockey reference, "Shooting the puck is never a bad play", meaning that there sometimes are better options than shooting, but that doesn't make it a mistake. Its the same thing here except with the citations, we are not aiming to make every article on Wikipedia a perfect article, but I'm sure everybody would be happy if they were all good. So I think that leaving the citations the way they are is the best option, and to go off and work on more productive things than these little squabbles. Just my thoughts. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would be happy to just have them where they are now and everyone go off and do some great work on other articles. I am just concerned that a million more will be added in. As long as that doesn't happen I am happy. In otherwords lets let things stay where they are and go off and be merry. --Djsasso 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Would it be possible to get a dif from when this article was argued to have too many citations? I'd like to see what this article looked like when it needed to be "fixed" before I could offer a greater comment. Resolute 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this seems to be the gist of it....
  1. TonyTheTiger fixes up the article to good article status [1]....
  2. Ravenswing takes out a number of citations [2]....
  3. They then reverted each other once each....
  4. TonyTheTiger does quite a few more edits [3]...
  5. Then Traynor removes other citations [4]. That's all the editing that has been done from the looks of things from the actual article. Other than that its been a lot of stone-throwing and mud-slinging from one camp to the other. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Based on a quick look, I am going to have to side mostly with Ravenswing here. The article was overlinked. There were cases of four line paragraphs using the same cite three or four times on consecutive sentences. I really do not see that as necessary. There might be room to add more back in, but imo, it was definitely a case of overkill. Resolute 05:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Agne

[edit]

First and foremost, general references listed at the bottom of an article are utterly and completely useless. At best they can function as a Further Reading (sort of an offwiki See Also) but for the sake of WP:V they offer absolutely no benefit to the reader or editor wishing to verify a particular fact. You can't compose a litany of facts and claims (which is what every article essentially is) and hand the reader a thick book and tell them to "go fish" for the one shred of information they want to verify. It's not practical. Additionally no one can claim, with any sort of credibility, that they know exactly what any given reader will want to "challenge" or simply follow up on. What may be "absurdly obvious" to a die hard fan may be somewhat curious or interesting for the novice fan or casual reader. Now of course this doesn't mean that every single sentence needs to be cited but in general there should be a relevant cite at least within the paragraph to back up all the claims put forth in that section. That said... if I was the GA reviewer on the version #1 posted above, I probably would not have passed the article without some improvement. Not because it was "overly cited" or even "under cited" but because it was not well cited-meaning that things that need to be cited are not while something are redundantly cited.
In looking at that first version there are three sources for the line

Yet no sources for the more opinion oriented claims that

and


Part of having an article "well cited" is picking out good sources that can support multiple claims and facts in the article. It also requires a degree of editorial skill in order to fashion paragraphs and string together facts that can all be cited by one source at the end of the paragraph which is a far cry from piece mealing together isolated facts with each their own source. It not easy (and I certainly struggle with as does many wikipedians) but is one of the skills that we must strive to be better at in order to produce better articles. Just my $0.02. AgneCheese/Wine 11:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments. First, I agree with Agne's first point, that a "general reference" at the end of the article is largely useless. Even if the original author can be sure that every sentence in the article can be verified to one of (say) three listed sources, a reader doesn't know which source verifies any particular sentence. When the article gets edited later, new content may or may not be based on the listed general references, and if it's not caught immediately, there's no way for a later reader or editor to distinguish that sentence from the other "verified" sentences. If multiple paragraphs have no inline cites, for the most part only the original author can judge whether changes to those paragraphs are good, but with inline cites, other editors can judge and revert too.
Second, if you want to see what's changed in this article, the {{ArticleHistory}} template has a link to state of the article as it originally passed GA. On that historical version, there is a link to this diff with the current version. Gimmetrow 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Ling.Nut

[edit]

"Minimum threshold; does not sanction."

This is a truly scary precedent. Choose your evils well!

I have to take both arguments to their extreme and ask: which is more evil, underlinked or overlinked? Underlinked is by far more evil:

  • No, citations don't prevent sneaky vandalism but without them the source of the info and thus the vandalism cannot be verified.
  • Do we want to set the scary precedent of letting folks remove citations because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? No. Verifiability trumps style.
  • The "challenged or likely to be challenged" bar in WP:V is a minimum threshold; it does not repeat does not sanction the removal of cites. It does not. Read the text again, please!
  • --Ling.Nut 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor forbids it, nor requires the alternative. The genuine scary precedent is the suggestion that anything not specifically sanctioned is forbidden.  Ravenswing  06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I hate it when people don't read what I've written. :-) I never mentioned the word "forbid." i was talking about the relative merits of arguments pro/con removing citations... I know you have a nontrivial personal stake in this issue, Ravenswing. I have a strong and healthy aversion to arguing with anyone on Wikipedia who has a personal stake in the outcome. It always and everywhere leads to interminable tit-for-tat I know-you-are-but-what-am-I threads. So, I won't. I'm.. willing to answer a couple more comments, if they contain salient points, but I'm not gonna tit-for-tat. later! --Ling.Nut 06:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I hate it when people presume that failure to agree with their POV equates to a failure to understand. No, you did not actually use the word "forbid." But you do harp on the fact that the text I quoted did not "sanction" the removal of cites. What's your point?  Ravenswing  04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample edit showing what happens when citation removal gets endorsed.

[edit]

this is what happens when people who don't understand the meaning of tertiary source take over a page. A tertiary source such as WP only summarizes what other secondary sources say. Every fact in a article is suppose to be something a secondary source says. When someone adds a {{fact}} tag, it is not proper for someone to say this is a fact because I say so and remove it without properly citing the fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not notice that the source I was replacing it with was not pasted into the article. I very much appreciate you letting me know this or replacing the {{fact}} tag so that it may be corrected. Oh wait actually you didn't you used it as another excuse to attack someone who disagrees with you. And I would appreciate it if you again read WP:CIVIL and don't accuse me of not knowing what a tertiary source is. You still seem to not understand what the disagreement on this page is about. It's not about no citing vs. citing. Its about the types of citation you are using. --Djsasso 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the {{fact}} as if it was malplaced. It was not. I would readd the claim if I could source it, but I spent a week at the Buffalo public library looking for such sources. Unless I am going to be in Montreal someday soon, I am not going to be able to find it. It should be tagged if included (as it was). I think it is premature tor remove the fact tag, but fighting with you is not worth the effort. I apologize if you view my editorial propriety correction as a personal attack. However, your statement that "You still seem to not understand what the disagreement on this page is about. It's not about no citing vs. citing. Its about the types of citation you are using." is clearly incorrect. If you believed that misstatement you would remove all references to the citations. If a certain article is refernced 5 times and you say it should only be referenced twice that is an argument about citing vs. not citing. If you believe it is about the types of citations then you would say all five should be removed because it is not the right type of reference. Get your story straight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant fix it as in replace the fact tag. As far as not understanding the arguement you just proved it in this statement. This has always been about using general references in place of multiple inline uncontroversial citations. Those are two types of reference. There are times when you should use inline and times when you should use a general reference. Removing all inline citations is being rediculous. But removing 3 of the 5 because they would be better suited with general references is an arguement about type, not an arguement about having them or not having them. An arguement about not having them would be trying to remove them without having a general reference to back the facts up. --Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gilbert Perreault/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is pretty good, maybe a 7/10.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Some referencing problems, I have highlighted the problem areas with tags in the article. The issue here is that a number of statistics are quoted without sources, these need to be addressed in order to verify this information.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'd really like to see some information about his personal life: Where was he born and who to; has he ever been married or had children; has he ever appeared in the news for any reason relating to his perosnal life?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
No images. They aren't essential, but would certainly improve the article substantially.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Maxim(talk) 01:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, this definately qualifies now. It could be improved a bit by merging some of the shorter paragraphs into longer ones and expanding the personal life sections a bit. Good job and very fast, impressive.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is much too short. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at least one well organised paragraph describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. This article does not provide enough information on the person in question and does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_Perreault&oldid=1209709261"