Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bates method/1

Bates method

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

Result: More specific and informative tags for the article are now being worked on. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not directly requesting here that Bates method be passed as a Good Article, but rather attempting to give it a chance to get a GA review. I understand the reasoning for the quick-fail, but I think in this case that logic falls short. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for states that one problem to look for when initially skimming a nominee are "cleanup banners which are obviously still valid". It is my opinion that the templates are outdated. However, we seem to have reached an impasse on this, but that means the article will probably remain stable for a while. Moreover, due to the nature of the issues in question, it is apparent to me that the only way to glean any further insight into whether or not the templates are still valid is to get the kind of thorough impartial review this process offers. Now, I understand that resolving content disputes is not the purpose of this project, but I've done everything I can to get the article to GA status, and the feedback from a review would be very helpful. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse GA fail. GA reviewers shouldn't pass an article which sports an original research tag. GAR isn't a forum to dtermine which tags are still valid. It's better to use the article's talk page for that. If that's not working you could consider a comment or peer review. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review states that "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners", so that is out of the question. The talk page has not worked in resolving the major issues (see the "impasse" link above), but it does make more clear what said issues are. They surround the manner in which the main sources are being used, so the best and probably the only viable step is a thorough and impartial review which includes examination of the sources. Again, all I'm asking for here is a chance for this to happen, if a reviewer chooses to commit the time. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(The reviewer) I didn't fail just because of the tags at the top, but I'm sure that GA says something to the effect of "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners" somewhere —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your previous statement which you edited out (why?), there is only one tag currently in the text of the article, discussed here. To me this just goes to illustrate why WP:OR should not be taken 100% literally (per WP:IAR) in regards to this article. However, the paragraph about selection bias is not what the OR template at the top refers to, see here. And the issue with WP:PSTS is the kind of thing which it seems only an in-depth, impartial review, including examination of the sources, can help us with at this point.

In regards to your last point, even if that's true, an article with cleanup banners could still be given a GA review. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've tried mediating on this page, and from what i can see the tags are spurious, with no identification of actual OR or NPOV. The quick fail criteria still must be applied, but i think some brief assessment of the tags should be done in such cases, and if the tags are deemed to be unnecessary then GAN can proceed. There is currently no way to stop the one editor there from preventing this article being GA - could GAR do this in future?Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to evaluate the OR and NPOV tags then consider using the Request for Comment process, requesting a third opinion, visit the policy talk page, or try formal Mediation. Good Article Reassessment isn't the place to come to resolve content or OR/NPOV policy disputes. Majoreditor (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)