Talk:Thomas Muthee/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being the one to finally take a look at this. I'll work to address issues in a prompt manner, as will, I hope, a couple of the other editors. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written pretty well throughout, could use some copyediting from fresh eyes not previously involved/significant contributors to the article. Should the word Bishop be bolded, or even part of his name in the lede, at all? Should probably just be his full name.

2. Factually accurate?: Most of it is duly cited throughout to appropriate sources. However, I do notice some cites to primary sources/websites, and others to blogs, one that sticks out is to blogspot.com. Better cites, preferably secondary sources, should be found for these.

3. Broad in coverage?: Some major issues here. Per WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize material in the article. Instead, in this article, the lede appears to present new material, which then does not appear later in the article. It appears the lede is a haphazard combination of a subsection which should be Early life, combined with minor bits of summary.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is worded in a neutral manner.

5. Article stability? I see a bit of conflict upon inspection of the article's talk page. Have these issues been resolved? There is some instability on inspection of the article's edit history, but most recent is from 12 November 2008 - has this issue been resolved as well?

6. Images?: No images used, so this is not an issue. However any chance of getting some relevant free-use images in the article? Anything from Wikimedia Commons available?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first work

Removed "Bishop" from name, created a short lede which pretty much summarizes article content.

"Blogspot" was not needed for any claim, no problem deleting.

Took old lede - renamed it "background" except for lines which are properly in lede and which reflect later sections.

Did best to keep NPOV.

Article is, in my opinion, fairly stable now.

No omages seem available. Wish they were. Collect (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working from Collect's fine start, I've copyedited the lead and the early life paragraph a bit more. Agree that the article is stable since one particularly contentious editor retired after being blocked for sockpuppetry. We could always ask Word of Faith church to release a picture for Wikipedia use, but failing that, I know of no acceptable images of Muthee that can be included. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses

Thanks for removing "Bishop".
Thanks for removing "Blogspot"
There are still a few primary sources that would best be replaced by secondary sources, namely: citations 1, 26-34, 36-38, 44 and 45.
Lede is now a bit short, would be best to expand it, with additional summary from the rest of the article.
Anything further on the individual's background, and Early life?

Please respond further below. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much is primary source due to lack of seconday sources - we tried to avoid them as much as possible, and will look at removing some more. As for "early life" he seems a bit of a mystery ... Collect (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep me posted. :) Cirt (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ref 1 we are pretty much stuck with, but it would fall under the exemption for "self-published sources" for sure as it is not a "personal website" or the like. I did not think sites for orgnizations were a major problem. It is not used for any issue actually in contention at least. I think we can remove some of the others for sure (especially foreign language or video cites), but I would ask Jclemens to look over them as well. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanged Faerie actually added the foreign language refs. I'll ping her. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FF hasn't edited in a while. I emailed her, we'll see if she shows up here over the next day or so. Failing that, we might as well continue without her input. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here, have been busy with Real Life. I like the changes I see so far. As for the foreign language ones, I tried to make sure they were backed up, or used to back up, English ones. My intention was to include as much info about him as I could find, then pare back as needed. His life is mostly speculation or opinion-based, or from now-dead websites, and I found nothing at all about his early life. As for the contention, that was an offshoot of the Sarah Palin... um, mess, really... because this article started off as a coatrack, POV, offshoot of her stuff. I tried to save the article then, and I'll help wherever I'm wanted. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lack of image, I find that regrettable. But I'm not comfortable with the copyright rules here, and even if I was I had a hard time finding a means of communication with anyone who could give permission. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final note, I think the line between primary and secondary sources is pretty blurry here. However, the info taken from arguably primary sources is factual things like the names of his kids and dates for the appearance at the WAoG rather than puff stuff, so I didn't think they'd be a problem, as of now. I didn't realize there were any blogspot or the like things left, but kudos to whomever pulled it/them. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

1. Pretty much unavoidable. The only source of info about his wife and children.

26. The most reliable source of dates for his visit. There used to be multiple citations from secondary sources, but they were pulled.

27. Only source. Not important, and it and the associated fact could be removed without great harm.

28. Only source. Secondary sources discussing this are either blogs or highly POV.

29-31. The only sources readily found for this appearance. A letter and two bulletins from churches hosting events. I didn't think they were primary, but maybe I'm confused about that.

32-33. Only sources. Given that this is an event in Africa, I doubt we'll find English secondary sources other than this. (General Zateb Kazim: "Don't worry. It's Africa. Nobody cares about Africa." --Sahara)

CRAP. These are now deadlinks. Sigh. :( Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find them on www.archive.org? Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34. Admittedly weak. It and the associated fact could be pulled without great harm.

36 and 37 are needed to back up the foreign-language info in 38, which is from a church news bulletin. I leave that for others to decide.

44. Is a dot.org site for a humanitarian group. Primary source, I dunno, it talks about helping Muthee/Muthee helping them.

45. Pretty weak. Could be pulled.

I put most of these in. Again, I tried to add anything I could find, then pare back as needed. Just thought I'd give my reasons for these. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could note that a "primary source" which is by another organization can be considered a "secondary source" for material about Muthee in some cases. I still think we can live without Swedish <g>. Collect (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

Any more progress on these above issues? I still see that there is a deadlink that needs to be addressed. From the above comments it looks like there is some info in the article that should probably be removed. There appear to also possibly be some additional sources here that could maybe be incorporated into the article? Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for however FF wants to address the sourcing concerns--looks like we have a reasonably good handle on the issues, they just need to be addressed. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, keep us posted here on this page. I will wait a bit longer. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually waiting for someone else to make changes. :) I don't own the article, and with the holidays I'm not on Wiki much right now. But after the New Year I'll be back, if wanted. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, I've pulled the weakest bits. The latest news articles on Google only mention Muthee as an aside in pieces about others. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABOUT VIDEO: I wanted to make something abundantly clear: the online hysteria over this individual is partly related to YouTube videos which are NOT directly cited in the article. There were two professional DVDs featuring Muthee that are cited ONLY as existing. They are not quoted or used as sources because they are arguably primary sources, and undeniably biased because they are promotional material. When a reliable text transcript is available for Muthee's words, THAT is what is cited. Just trying to head off another edit war here, no hard feelings intended! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time

The article is indeed a bit better after the improvements during the GA review, but I am not yet comfortable passing it as GA at this time. There are still four short paragraphs of one or two sentences. The article lacks an infobox (not a failing criteria), but that could be added going forward. A free-use image would be nice. The lede still seems a bit short, and doesn't seem to be a full stand-alone summary of the article as necessitated per WP:LEAD. There seems to be quite a bit of weighting on one issue/event, as well as not too much info on Background, which could be expanded upon further. In addiiton, it'd be best to phase out as many of the primary sources as possible in favor of secondary sources. When these issues have been addressed, feel free to re-nominate for another GA evaluation. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum – I would also recommend a peer review going forward, to get some more eyes from other editors on these above ideas, before another GA review. Cirt (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]