Talk:No worries/GA2

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was KEEP. ~~Detestable and~~ Unconstructive drive-by nomination that did not even bother to inform the creator or post on the talk page (where the issues should have been discussed before coming here). In my opinion this should have been speedy keep for non-compliance with the instrcutions at WP:GAR. For that reason, and WP:SNOW, I have no compunction closing this early. Spinning Spark 11:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why No worries does not meet GA status criterion

Australian POV

This article almost entirely talks about Australia saying that it is an Australian expression. Until the article represents a worldwide view of the subject, it should not a GA status. nerd fighter 15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do other countries regularly use this expression with the same connotation? I know it is relatively common in New Zealand, but I have never heard it commonly used elsewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it mentions Canada, America and Britain in the Usage and Influence section. AIRcorn (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to clarify my position here, and in my opinion it currently meets the criteria for Good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ - The lead alone is reason enough to delist—I don't think it provides an adequate summary. It is heavily POV towards Australia, the term is definitely used commonly in New Zealand and that is reason enough to question the POV of the article. I also have concerns that the article relies so heavily on quotes from sources. There is nothing in there on the origins of the term (or whether the origins are even known). There is also a couple of sentences that confuse me: "In her 1992 book Semantics, Culture, and Cognition, Wierzbicka classifies the phrase as "among the most characteristic Australian expressions", along with "good on you".[10] Wierzbicka comments that the expression illustrates important parts of Australian culture, including: "amiability, friendliness, an expectation of shared attitudes (a proneness to easy 'mateship'), jocular toughness, good humour, and, above all, casual optimism".[10] She concludes that along with "good on you", the expressions reflect the "national character" and "prevailing ethos" of Australia.[11] " — other then that such a long quote may be pushing fair use a bit, reference [10] is from Wierzbicka, but ref [11] is from "Moon", is that a mistake? - Shudde ^talk 07:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my view to Keep - the lead has been significantly improved, and it's good to see something about the origin of the term. I still think it would be nice to have something in there about how common the expression is in New Zealand; rather than just saying it has "migrated" which doesn't indicate whether it is very common or not. More is discussed about the UK and USA, where as far as I am aware the expression is much less common. Also not so sure about the quality of those refs regarding use in Canada. Regardless, I'm happy with the significant improvements that Cirt has made. - Shudde ^talk 10:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I'll also get on implementing those helpful suggestions. — Cirt (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe that is another secondary source that cites her research. — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why did no one notify me, the original GA contributor about this? Look at the secondary sources used. Virtually none of them are from Australia. The article does present a worldview. It is just exactly what the secondary sources state! — Cirt (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please note that the nominator has provided exactly zero sources to back up his assertions, above. Thanks. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are the countries discussed in the article, before this GA Review Assessment:

Australia, noting origination as a term there.
United Kingdom, noting pervasiveness in British English after appearing in soap operas from television shows from Australia.
United States, noting scholars think the term became more prevalent in American English after the 2000 Sydney Olympics and usage on the television show The Crocodile Hunter.
Canada, notes more recent usage in Canadian English.
Papua New Guinea, noting crossover to a similar phrase in Papua New Guinea in the language Tok Pisin.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per suggestion by Shudde (talk · contribs), above, I have expanded the lede/intro sect of the article. This sect now more adequately summarizes the entire article contents. Hopefully this is satisfactory. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Cirt that the range of sources here appears to give a sufficiently global view of the subject; what, exactly, has been omitted from the article? The updated lead section seems sufficient to me as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recent changes by Cirt have addressed the indicated problems, which were minimal anyway, not enough to delist. Nerdfighter appears to have missed a very vital point made at the WP:GAR guideline which is that "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." Nerdfighter could easily have made an effort to give the article a broader basis rather than wasting other editors' time in a public process. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Binksternet. The aim of the GAR process is not to delist articles. The article does present a worldwide view of the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added two (2) sources discussing usage in New Zealand. Added info on origins which date back to 1966 as early documentation. Added info on New Zealand to body text of article. Also, added info on New Zealand to intro lede sect. Hopefully this is satisfactory info on New Zealand usage for New Zealanders. Also, NEW ZEALAND!!! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.