Wikipedia:Discontent Content/Issue 5

Discontent Content Issue #5

Welcome, subscribers, to the fifth Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.

Category 1

Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy.

This issue's Category 1 articles are:

1. Isolar – 1976 Tour: A substantial musical event for one of the most influential albums of its era, but with a rather spindly, table-focused article (I also note no one seems to have given post-inflation numbers for any of the figures).
2. Occultism (Islam): "Major topic that's a literal stub because it's about something outside the comfort zone of the average editor" of the day. Esotericism in one of the world's major exoteric religions is, of course, something which can be written about extensively.
3. G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: Going meta for a moment...This is an interesting case, and it's a shame we discuss it only as a paragraph. It would be fascinating to read further on this topic.

Category 2

Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights.

This issue's Category 2 articles are:

1. Misophonia: A concept, symptom, or disorder -- no one's quite yet drawn the borderlands -- where people are unusually upset at noises such as chewing sounds. The idea may sound odd, but it does distress people with it and those around them. The subject is very popular, with Half Million Award-tier page views, but the readers are served by a rather weak article.
2. Sparks (band): This eccentric, creative band was a GA long ago, but delisted in 2010. Though undersourced, the article certainly has potential to return to its old status.
3. Han Xin: One of the great military leaders of ancient China is graced by a massively undersourced article. Several sections have none at all.

Category 3

Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine.

This issue's Category 3 articles are:

1. Wind: This FA is on a huge, important topic, but its star needs some polishing. FAR notice has been given for significant uncited passages. To quote the talk page, the article has good bones, and it can certainly be restored to modern FA status if anyone is able to work on it.
2. Jeopardy!: The article for perhaps one of the most famous game shows of all time is at GAR for citation issues. Most of the issues brought up can be fixed quite easily, such as locating page numbers.
3. French fries: Tasty, but needs more sauce. The GAR discusses unsourced sections and unreliable sourcing; I also notice some pretty blatant prose issues and a spindly lead.

Letter from the Editor

This issue's reader suggestion from Sennecaster:

• Maasai people: The Vital 4 article for this major East African ethnic group was recently significantly reduced due to copyvio. It needs urgent work to restore cored-out content, but the references are still available in the article to simplify the process.

One topic I've been broadly thinking about lately is the concept of GA sweeps. There hasn't been one in well over a decade; discussion of a new one is traditionally stymied by the sheer number of GAs that would need sweeping, considering there are over ten times as many as there were at the last sweep. Nonetheless, there's no dispute that many GAs don't really count as 99.5th percentile articles, or even decent-quality articles (whether one's own personal reading of WIAGA is closer to the former or the latter, and how different those things are, is an exercise for the reader).

I've been brainstorming ideas, and I've been wondering if we can tackle the problem with limited-scope sweeps. One idea would be sweeping popular or vital articles -- those that get enough views to make up a significant proportion of the "GA experience" to readers. Another would be focusing on shorter GAs, which might trend towards a less in-depth treatment of the topic than could really justify the rating. There may very well be a path here to maintaining GA standards, and either of those would have the benefit that they might be more likely to encourage people to work on rather than simply delist articles -- popular topics with lots of interested parties willing to help, or smaller topics that don't seem like too big a challenge to pick up.
Vaticidalprophet 04:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)