Talk:David Gould (basketball)/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written - the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:OK
• External links:OK
• Reference check: OK
• Comments: Nice usage of the OTRS images, that is always a plus to see in articles. Technically, this is a pretty good article. Some stray space at the end of the lead between the period and "team". The caption on the image is rather off-putting, should just be "Gould's portrait for the 2000 Austrialian Paralympic Team" or something similar. The personal history is a bit sparse on the citations, but they do follow at the end of the paragraph, I just like them cited after each claim. Overall, it seemed as if there were no problems until I checked the body of the sources. The source: Sporting Resume - David Gould" (PDF). Starwin management. Retrieved 21 October 2013, is the main source for this article including all claims for the state and national team sections and a fair amount of the coach section as well. This is a major problem because it an actual resume hosted by a management firm. For many of these claims the issue runs afoul of verifiability and neutrality as the source has definite interest in promoting the subject. Wikipedia typically does not allow such sources to be used in the academic space and I see no reason why it should be acceptable here. I do not doubt many of the claims, but the claims are just too likely to be challenged and are something that typically need not be cited by an actual resume of the person or their management firm. I'm going to place this on hold, but I believe a range of different sources or a completely neutral third-party that is independent of the subject and doesn't have a vested interest in the matter be used. As long as we are being nitpicky, per the Image polcies I think it would be proper to crop the white space about Gould's head, it seems about twice as large as necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed white space in lead. Corrected a spelling error. Cropped the image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the
    Reliable Sources Noticeboard, it is completely acceptable to use such résumés for factual information in BLP articles. See [1] and [2] Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The second discussion states the high rate of inaccuracies and the proper matter is

WP:BLPSPS because the material is unduly self-serving and the information represents all notable claims from an agency whose sole duty is to promote the subject. This fails on neutrality because of that and the fact these claims are not "I worked with X on Y" or "In X, she did this" we have multiple non-trivial claims to fame being sourced to a resume and the rate of exaggeration on these is extremely high. For this reason it must be treated like it is, a promotional self-serving and self-published source. In this case it simply is inadequate for a GA article - it would not pass an FA check either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it isn't. (1) The information is not self-published, and the publisher could face charges under the Trade Practices Act if it is found to be inaccurate. (2) The subject's claim to notability is based on his being awarded a Paralympic gold medal, which is independently sourced. (3)

WP:RSN has already ruled that such material is a reliable source, so if you want it to rule otherwise, then you will have to seek consensus over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I will seek out a few third opinions, while I agree that NPOV does not apply to sources - it does apply to the article as a whole and the source dominates the article with highly contentious claims and is sourced to a management agency. This presents a severe problem for the article's claims. While the underlying person is notable, the source is not reliable and I've personally gone through it again to make sure of this. Even without placing the tag, this article needs independent journalistic or other sources. Both of which should exist beyond this "sporting resume" from the management/talent agency. It is a
  questionable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Can you do that? I have no ego invested in it, but if the résumé cannot be used, I will have to withdraw the nomination, remove all the text attributed to it, restore what I can from some archives we've accessed, and then re-nominate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how to proceed... there is no way to source these to news articles or another issue? Its a resume listing from the agency, which makes it a questionable source. I don't want to fail it, but this is a matter which is key to the article if there is no other way to source it. The usage almost warranted a "one source" tag; and issue in of itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has 17 sources, so it can hardly be said to use one source. During the review I supplemented the résumé (source 9) with archived sources 1 and 12. This means that we have alternate sources for all the national and international games (and the résumé was found to be correct in every case). But the archiving regime only covers national and international sporting events, leaving a gap with state level sports. In the time period that we are looking at the documentation and archiving regimes were not as thorough as they are today. HOPAU has been relying on newsletters and interviews. However it is only up to 1990 at the moment, and has not yet done much with basketball. Again, I have a

  WP:RSN ruling that résumés are acceptable for factual information. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• When the review started the entire "career" was sourced to the resume. Don't get me wrong, but I was told that the source was not reliable and I should fail it immediately. Now, the most contentious claims are still sourced to the resume "He was Most Valuable Player in 1985, and was the top point scorer every year from 1984 to 1991. South Australia won the national championships again in 1986, with Gould as its Best and Fairest, and part of the All Star Five. He was selected to the All Star Five again every year from 1986 to 1992. South Australia was runner-up in 1987 and 1988, and won in 1989, 1990 and 1991." And according to the stats the "Top Points" is not listed for the years, I see records from 2001 on and "Named in the All Star 5 – for the National Wheelchair Basketball League" for 1999 is listed as 2000 on the other source. I do not believe something which is not officially tracked or reported should be present on here - and definitely not one some resume by a management agency. I'll flag this for a second since no one responded yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This second opinion thing doesn't get much comments does it? I personally am not comfortable listing such a questionable source for the data. Especially if its not an official tracked stat. I'll wait a bit longer, but I think that management agency source needs to be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a note on the

WP:RSN. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm failing this, the RSN discussion is the same as another previous discussion. The source must be treated as if self-published and it is contentious. As long as that source is present, this article fails the GA criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. The link to the discussion is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_164#Are_r.C3.A9sum.C3.A9s_and_CVs_reliable_sources_for_BLPs.3F. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Absolutely not contentious. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is for the reasons listed here and at the noticeboard. The source is not reliable for the assertions it makes and its origin and intended use. This is not an arguing matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Reliable Sources Noticeboard affirmed three times that it can be used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, as Andy opened with, "The consensus from previous discussions seems to be that they should be treated as self-published sources..." Its pretty clear that it is contentious and that it is an issue, it has to be treated as self-published and that means it is not up to GA standards. When you can get secondary sources to back up some of these honors you can GAN it again, but as it stands, the source and the lack of official tracking shows that a claim on some management agency resume is acceptable. I've gotten several 3Os on this and I'm not going to argue it further - I didn't even comment at the RSN because its so blatantly obvious that it is not a reliable source for the exceptional claims it makes. The fail stands and I am disappointed you think RSN "affirmed three times that it can be used". Do not misrepresent or twist the words of others, it looks petty and is easily fact-checked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just wanted this on the review record. There is a difference between the article not being up to GA standards, and having to gut the article. My understanding is that resumes can be used, as long as it is not for anything contentious. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]