Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

Discussion regarding the FA status of the article moved from WT:FAC to here.

I think this article is pretty bad, but I'm not sure if it has people who are irrationally defending it, or if I'm overreacting. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In what way is it "pretty bad"? That's a perfectly acceptable opinion to have, but some examples of where it is flawed or lacking would help people judge what you mean. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It went through FAR in 2022. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to say, lest I bias, but:

1. There's a huge amout of the article spent on analysing Harry Potter in great detail. A link to Harry Potter series seems more appropriate.

2. It has some moments of extremely infelicitous writing. For example, near the end of J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith, we suddenly get a description of the main character in the middle of the last paragraph. The "Themes" section reads like a high school essay. The beginning of J. K. Rowling#Philanthropy reads Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, Rowling wanted to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press; she became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". which - besides tending towards hagiography, also contains that "in the words of Smith" bit. Smith was last mentioned in #Religion, wealth, and remarriage, probably a dozen pages ago, and has a generic name.

3. Thanks largely to point 1, it is exceedingly long. At over 200,000 characters, It's nearly twice as long as William Shakespeare, Maya Angelou, Honoré de Balzac, etc. While by no means the longest featured article, I'm not sure it can be considered sufficiently on-topic to justify how high up in those rankings as it is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC has nothing to do with the article right now. So why is this topic here? Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt. AC, why is is this topic here? Is the article talk page off-topic not enough? @FAC coordinators: @FAR coordinators: could someone please move this topic to WT:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted a reality check, away from you. You've been constantly putting down any attempt to change anything in J. K. Rowling for literal months, not engaging with criticisms, constantly saying that everything's fine because of a 2022 FAR, and I wanted to check that my view of the article was accurate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden please read WP:CTOP. JKR is under double sanctions; I invite you to strike the personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I was coming here to get a neutral, secondary opinion, to find out - as I said - if I'm overreacting. I'm sorry, Sandy, but after your literal month-long defense of Suissa and Sullivan, a laughably awful source where only four sentences or so even were about Rowling, the rest of it unfocused rants that changed subject every couple sentences.... After your comments in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Is this in the source? where there was an agreement that something clearly wasn't in the source, and then you claimed it was, and refused to quote the text you thought cited it.... Well, that went beyond WP:OWN to WP:Competence is required issues. So, no, I don't want to hear what you have to say on the subject, because I don't really think you're rational when it comes to this subject. But I will pull back my original comment somewhat. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, this comment also needs pulling back - it's not civil and not helpful for what you're hoping to accomplish here. Dial it down. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You are presumably referring to this talk page section? To answer your original question, I think your main argument has merit, but you are definitely overreacting with "Why is this article so badly written?...Why is this article so bad? How was this ever accepted as a featured article?... This article is such a mess." (etc., formatting unadjusted) Reminder: you are talking about 600 words only out of 9,000, in an article about a very divisive figure. Would it terribly hinder you to cut down on the needless hyperbole and focus on the improvements? If I found mistakes in three of your FP restorations, I certainly wouldn't repetitively demand "WHY IS YOUR WORK SO TERRIBLE? How have any of your images been featured?"—because that does absolutely zilch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At a very quick glance:

• The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the WP:LEAD—The Casual Vacancy (2012) was her first novel for adults. She writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, under the alias Robert Galbraith.—seem a bit odd for the very first paragraph.
• Born in Yate, Gloucestershire, Rowling was working as a researcher and bilingual secretary for Amnesty International in 1990 when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series. – quite a non sequitur, and I'm not convinced the place of birth is necessary in the lead at all.
• There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series. – "were" would seem to suggest that they have stopped, in which case it would be relevant to indicate whether they did so quickly or if they lasted for a long time.
• The bibliography has a rather unorthodox layout that does not seem to be very well suited to the contents.

Based on this, I think it's fair to say it does not seem to be polished to the degree one would hope a WP:Featured article would be. That doesn't mean it is outright bad (and I haven't looked into it nearly closely enough to be able to say whether it is), but it would probably be able to improve it a decent amount. TompaDompa (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would argue that, as a writer, if we didn't cover her second longest-running series (one that is still ongoing and adapted for a television series), that would be odd. I think it's entirely justified where it is.
• I think the summary sentence on the religious aspect is appropriate for the lead - it needs to summarise the article, not repeat every aspect of it.
• The layout of the sources looks completely fine and dandy to me.
• That brings it down to a minor tweak of one sentence. I agree that the location of birth isn't necessary, although I have seen them in enough biographies not to think it's necessarily a bad thing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Some clarifications:

  • Rowling's non-Harry Potter writing should certainly be mentioned in the lead. It's the placement in the first paragraph that stands out to me. I haven't looked into the sources, but based on what I've come across about Rowling just in everyday life I would be surprised if they treat The Casual Vacancy and Cormoran Strike with this level of relative weight and prominence.
  • My point is that "were" is a conspicuous choice of word here; the way we would usually phrase it is with "have been". The decision to deviate from the typical phrasing comes across, at least to me, as indicative of intentionality. That makes the omission of any temporal description likewise conspicuous.
  • I'm referring to the section titled "Bibliography", not the list of sources used by the article itself.

  I would also note that overall, article quality should be expected to display regression toward the mean over time—articles of above-average quality should be expected to deteriorate while those of below-average quality should be expected to improve—and that a more heavily edited article should be expected to do so more quickly. For a high-profile WP:BLP subject like this, one would thus expect regular upkeep to be necessary. That's not intended as a point against this article nor a defence of it, but I think it is worth keeping in mind when we have WP:Featured articles on topics like this—maintaining such high standards requires ongoing commitment. Even a perfect version of an article on a subject like this, where the real-world situation and/or the coverage in the sources (in this case, both) changes as much as it does as quickly as it does here, would not remain so for long (even absent edits that cause a regression toward to the mean in terms of quality) as what the perfect version should look like would be a rapidly moving target. That is to say, there being significant room for improvement is the expected state of affairs here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Specific discussions about article content and improvement belong on the talk page of the article. We should not be succumbing to WP:FORUMSHOP and splitting of content discussions unnecessarily (the article is nowhere near FAR territory). For example, the fact that JKR's popular pseudonym Robert Galbraith should be mentioned in the first para of the lead is hard to dispute (some would argue it belongs in the first line), but holding these conversations here won't benefit the article. And 8,900 words of readable prose on a bio of one of the most prolific (and controversial) writers of all time is by no stretch of WP:SIZERULE too long, but again, that belongs on talk. And, surprisingly, the location of her birth is not at all straightforward, as those who have read the full article will see. We have multiple threads on article talk of non-specific complaints backed by no scholarly sources; the problems occurring on talk may have to do with whether a FAR is warranted. But the specific concerns raised by TompaDompa belong on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel:, the main writers of the current version of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's helpful to ping people who agree with you to an attempt to get a neutral, third party opinion on whether I'm overreacting to how bad the article is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Presumably you've read the instructions at WP:FAR about notifying main contributors? FAR is not dispute resolution; perhaps you wanted WP:3O or some other forum, but a list of your concerns on talk first, backed by scholarly sources, rather than personal preferences is the usual way to proceed.

  For example, it's not for me to defend Vanamonde's work, but I am confident he did a thorough review of literary and scholarly sources, and when it was raised IIRC, the connection between her mother's death and Potter themes was not explicitly mentioned in scholarly sources, so we leave it for the reader to draw conclusions. Your comment here, for example, is completely devoid of sources; if you have some that are high quality, I don't doubt that presenting those collegially and collaboratively will result in Vanamonde or someone making the adjustments. Source-based talk discussions are more helpful than generalized personal complaints or preferences. And the main contributors are the editors who have the sources and did the source review, which is why they are called to FAR (and FAC has a similar rule).

  Please spend more time reading talk, analyzing sources, and less with non-specific personal opinions. WP:TALK is a helpful guideline page about how to effectively use article talk pages (noting the diffless personal attacks haven't been struck; I suggest re-thinking that approach on a contentious topic). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Whether the article is nowhere near FAR territory seems to me to be a point where opinions differ, given the existence of this discussion in the first place. I don't have any particular opinion on the matter, but it doesn't strike me as altogether conducive to productive collaboration to treat the suggestion as plainly illegitimate—especially considering that for an article like this, it would be fairly unremarkable to have ceased to meet the high standards imposed by the WP:Featured article criteria in the time that has passed since it was last evaluated against them. TompaDompa (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I no longer edit actively due to IRL commitments but I invite all present on this page to review the extraordinarily extensive FAR talk page for the most recent FAR and revisions made accordingly. Perhaps I am wrong but I don’t think the article has changed sufficiently since its extremely well attended, recent FAR to justify a further review. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't object to notifying more people, I do object that you don't appear to have pinged people who disagree with you, including specifically me. Loki (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar have you read the FAR instructions? I pinged neither people who agreed with me nor people who disagreed with me. In some instances, Victoriaearle agrees with me, and I didn't ping her. We don't know whether AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel agree or disagree on any point, as we haven't heard from them. The other main editor, Vanamonde93, has repeatedly agreed to adjust text when given a valid reason (as have I), so I don't even understand framing this in terms of "agree or disagree" -- that's batleground rather than collaborative framing.

  I pinged the main writers of the content, per FAR instructions, as they are the people who have the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This should all go to the article talk. Trying to do an end-run around major contributors by going here instead of the talk page is neither collegial nor an effective way to actually address any issues that may exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I wasn't trying to do an end-run, I was trying to find out if I was overreacting to the article's quality. I wanted a quick, informal poll. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• I will be the first to say that no article is perfect, and constructive suggestions are always welcome. But we need to recognize that even with a heavily revised article - like this one - editors will have preferences as to prose and structure that are just that: preferences. The article will never satisfy everyone. If it were my work alone, there are many changes I would make. I know Sandy wasn't happy with some of the choices we made at FAR. But that's how consensus works. Unless there is general agreement that AC's issues - or anyone else's - make the article fundamentally flawed, I don't see how we are approaching FAR territory. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Addendum: I am genuinely confused by the size concern; 54kb of prose is comfortably within the range suggested by WP:SIZERULE, and ~9k words is about what I would expect to see for any well-studied subject at the FA level. It is also not "almost twice as long" as the article on Shakespeare (6.7k words vs 8.8k). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think it doesn't justify its length. Throwing in a:

  See also: Harry Potter series

  ...would probably be more appropriate, especially given how everything else she wrote gets almost nothing in the analysis sections. J. K. Rowling#Style and allusions has two sentences that even mention the other things she wrote, and J. K. Rowling#Themes is 100% Harry Potter, as is J. K. Rowling#Gender and social division. I'm not saying that it's too long based solely on word count, but because there's a robust network of articles on her fiction, and it's acting like everything has to go into her article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Very simply, because that's what the sources analyze; scholarly work that examines Rowling is overwhelmingly about HP, secondarily about her life, and barely mentions her other fiction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Aye, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other articles that'd better suit that depth of Harry Potter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I still find your arguments deeply confusing. We have a large list of more specific articles about Harry Potter, as is expected for the world's best-selling book series. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, Rowling's page carries a summary of the material that ought to be in these sub-articles. The inclusion of any specific point in the overview page is a matter of judgement, for editors to come to a consensus on; but the existence of the subsidiary articles themselves is no argument against the inclusion of detail. Rather than discussing which details you feel ought to be pruned, you keep insisting that we replace (some of? all of? I'm not seeing specifics) with a see also link, which is a plain non-starter because, as I said, the overview article needs a summary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  It drowns in examples. I am very explicitly not saying everything I'm striking out should be cut, but if we did, all the key points would be raised.

• I don't think that there's any substantial points lost even if that whole section is (carefully) gutted like shown there. We don't need to cut it that much in every instance, but that's an awful lot of text that one can cut and still keep every point raised, just without letting it drown in examples and repetition ("drowning", of course, being in the context of this article. If this was in Harry Potter series, a lot more examples would be justified, but there's a lot more to cover in the article on her than just the Harry Potter series.

  What we have isn't a summary. Also, this is basically two paragraphs taken from Harry Potter#Themes, and not changed much. The third paragraph there, nestled between the two used for it, reads as follows:

• If we cut the excessive examples, we'd have room to include material where Rowling explains her motivations for making Death a theme. Which is way more relevant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've screwed up indentations pretty comprehensively, for which I apologise. And am not quite sure how best to fix. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Adam Cuerden. Would you mind confining your content comments to talk so they won't be lost in the future? That content was written by Olivaw-Daneel, collaboratively (see update here SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)) one of the main editors of the literary portions, who hasn't edited since April, and by placing content comments on a completely unrelated page, it is less likely that she (or any future editor trying to disentangle these changes, which you have made in the article) will be able to discover why this content has been added back to the main article if/when she returns to editing. Did you search the archives to see what O-D said about why she didn't addd that content to the main article ? This manner of editing is not collaborative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was asked to explain my position here, Sandy. And your method of trying to block all edits to the article isn't very collaborative either. And created a process for every small edit to the article that you are rightfully getting called out for, and have started saying that the four months-long process with ten drafts didn't create a true consensus and was rushed apparently because you object to a single sentence getting edited out. You've created the least collaborative environment possible. It's WP:OWN writ large. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 09:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Trying to block all edits to the article" is another in a string on this page of diffless and baseless personal attacks. I'll continue on your talk as the next step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm explicitly not endorsing that entire list of cuts, but that, at least, is a proposal I can engage substantively with. Why did it need us weeks to get to this place? And why did we need to get here via considerable personal commentary? (those are rhetorical). I'd be happy to discuss specifics of this on the talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Can we please dial down the tone here. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to solicit outside input. Having some contributors who have strong feelings about the content can be a plus but it can also be a minus. It's human nature to resist change in something you worked to build, leading to a tendency to stick with older positions that are not current. (t · c) buidhe 02:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree with buidhe that the tone needs to be dialed down, because it demotivates anyone who might otherwise engage.
  Adam, when I reverted here, I didn't realize that section had been moved wholesale into the Harry Potter article, which, as it happens, I don't agree with. But, that discussion shouldn't happen here. It should happen on the talk page. If you and the others reading this take a look at archive 2 of the FAR, link, there are a couple of threads to do with the literary analysis. Basically four people wrote the section, three of whom of chimed in. When editing collaboratively consensus is still a pillar.
  My suggestion is to read the sources, of which there are plenty, come up with a plan, and pitch it on the talk page, where the discussion belongs. Victoria (tk) 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• I also agree the tone should be toned down. (Pun intended.) My overall opinion here is that it's not nearly as far away from featured article quality as Adam seems to think, but it does need maintenance that hasn't been happening because the writers of the previous version of the article have insisted on confining possible edits to the talk page where they inevitably drown in discussion. It took 10 drafts and several months to update the section on Rowling's views on transgender people, a subtopic which was evolving quickly and badly needed an update. The rest of the article is not in nearly so bad of a state but I do agree with Adam that it focuses too much on material that should go in the article on Harry Potter, not its author. Loki (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's unsalvagable in theory, but between finding several poorly or falsely cited bits in the Transphobia section - which makes me worry other sources might be misused - and the constant WP:OWN insistence of everything going to the talk page (where the comments will be ignored) makes things that could be fixed easily on any other article feel unfixable. And if the article has unfixale problems, it probably shouldn't be an FA. Like, everything I bring up here is fixable if people are allowed to edit the article. But that "if" is the problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Adam, can you drop the OWN crap please? Asking people to use a talk page over a disputed edit isn't ownership, it's exactly what BRD says should be done - and that's even without the provisions contained in FAOWN because this is an FA. You'll get further in your arguments if you stop pissing people off with the constant uncivil accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  It hasn't "pissed me off", but AC's tone and approach has created a timesink and battleground environment on talk (a first in several years). I will head to his talk page after I catch up here and have breakfast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Its obvious that there is a group of established editors who have taken it upon themselves to keep the article content in line with their personal beliefs. Whether they are right is a different question, but I don't think it is in civil to describe it as "ownership". (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Diffless = another baseless personal attack. What personal beliefs? The transgender section was drafted by at least five different editors, with a dozen or more participants. What personal beliefs, with diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar I appreciate the acknowledgement that we aren't in FAR territory, because the split of content discussions to this page (after misuse of the talk page, where sources were rarely supplied to support concerns) is creating confusion.

  The "writers of the previous version of the article" generally are Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel (although a couple dozen editors participated and also tweaked and copyedited). O-D hasn't edited since April; that is one problem we're having. AP isn't editing; that is a second problem. Vanamonde93 has clearly collaborated constructively. The three of them-- and to some extent Victoriaearle -- have the bulk of the sources (things from Kirk or Smith can usually, but not always be attributed to me, but that content was worked in collaboration with O-D and AP, to be sure it conformed with scholarly sources). The Transgender section was a collaboration that included at least a dozen editors, maybe more, so no one person was the main editor there, although the main editors weighed in to keep content conforming with scholarly sources. So I hope you will see that your statement above about "the writers" is not true, and will strike.

  I've already given my opinion on the literary analysis in the article; you can read the FAR and see that I was strongly opposed -- for the very reasons we are seeing now -- but consensus strongly overrode me. The amount of literary analysis that remains in the article now seems reasonable to me (eg, things like connecting the death theme to her personal bio).

  I really don't understand the tone Adam Cuerden has taken throughout these discussions, as it was unwarranted. The transgender section was updated, I believe to everyone's satisfaction; I see some repetition, but not enough to worry about.

  So @FAR coordinators: why are these content discussions happening on the FAR talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Err, not nearly as far away from featured article quality as Adam seems to think and aren't in FAR territory aren't the same thing. I do think we're in FAR territory for basically the same reason Adam responded to me with: an article with minor problems that would be easily fixable for any other article, but which has an editing environment under which no problems can be fixed, has unfixable problems and therefore shouldn't be featured.

  I'd prefer to solve this situation by reestablishing a more ordinary editing environment rather than going through FAR, especially since there was a recent FAR. But I also think that if this article went through FAR right now, it would fail, and because problems aren't getting fixed and what would be ordinary maintenance isn't happening, the chances of passing FAR by the time it's due for another one are small if nothing changes. Loki (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Loki, if something isn't getting fixed, you should raise it on talk. As far as I know, the transgender content was rewritten to everyone's satisfaction (with multiple editors including myself engaging in the rewrite, which we all acknowledged was needed), and was installed. Please don't further these diffless and untrue accusations. Who is not trying to fix what ? Diff, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I guess, let me put it to you this way.

  The headers of the J.K. Rowling article are as of right now: Name, Life and Career, Influences, Style and Themes, Reception, Legacy, Legal Disputes, Philanthropy, Views, Awards and Honours, Bibliography, Filmography. Some of these just seem immediately questionable to me. Rowling may have a Style but does she really have "Themes"? (Her works do, but does Rowling?) Does she have a Reception that's distinct from her Legacy? Are her Influences, Style, Reception, Legacy, and Legal Disputes all separate from her Life and Career? The overall structure of the page just seems very odd to me for a featured article.

  There's also a variety of minor changes that should happen but haven't. So for instance:

  • The main article says she supports Labour when the article on her political views clarifies that may no longer be true.
  • There's a mention of Beira's Place in the philanthropy section that says it's for biological women cited to the Telegraph, which is both an WP:NPOV problem because it's clearly taking her side of the issue, and a sourcing issue because the Telegraph was recently agreed to be WP:MREL on trans issues.
  • There's a sentence in the Legacy section which seems to confuse the underlying issue when it says her statements about characters – for instance, that Harry and Hermione could have been a couple, and that Dumbledore was gay – have complicated her relationship with readers: it makes it sound like fans object to Dumbledore being gay, when the actual fan objection is that Rowling only said that Dumbledore was gay after the fact and not in the books themselves.

  Etc etc, it didn't take me long to come up with these and I'm sure I could find more easily. My point here isn't that any of these are terrible but that in any other article stuff like this could and would be fixed very quickly upon being noticed. But here it won't be, because it will take pages and pages of discussion to settle on perfect alternate phrasing on the talk page. Loki (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, none of this addresses the point you made earlier, or answers my request for a diff of where problems are not being addressed. You repeated above the false and diffless accusation that "because problems aren't getting fixed and what would be ordinary maintenance isn't happening", and when I ask for an example, you provide something that has never been raised on talk! You are raising these new content issues for the first time (in the wrong place), that have never been mentioned on talk, so you have no reason to say they wouldn't be fixed if raised unless we go to a bad faith assumption (which I'm not prone to do anytime, much less so with you). Making ordinary changes to the majority of the article are in no way comparable to the consensus needed to work through the single most controversial section in the article (transgender rights), which was constrained by a very widely attended 2022 RFC but we always planned to revisit when more sources were available (that is stated in almost every FAR keep rational!), but you appear to be assuming they are. Do you see the problem? Throughout the discussions of any change, I have pointed out the history, the sources, and to discussions where they occurred to inform current edits. I am most confused about where all these false accusations originate (although I'm beginning to form some ideas). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been following this for a couple of days, and obviously I'm not an FAR coord or involved with the JKR article, but a few observations: Firstly, I think this thread was initially a good-faith attempt by Adam to seek wider input into a content dispute. The FAR talk page isn't really the right venue for that, but the spirit of WP:DR is that seeking third-party opinions is good. However, Adam then loses a lot of sympathy with the attempt above to silence the article's regular editors such as Sandy, with whom he is in disagreement - comments such as "I wanted a reality check, away from you" aren't consistent with a collegiate approach. When Sandy challenged this, Adam doubled down into outright personal attacks such as "went beyond WP:OWN to WP:Competence is required issues", "I don't really think you're rational when it comes to this subject" and "You've created the least collaborative environment possible". If you think there are genuine behavioral issues with respect to Sandy, then those should be raised at WP:AN/I in the usual fashion, with diffs and evidence. Frankly, this is all rather surprising poor conduct from an experienced and well-respected contributor such as Adam. Anyway, leaving that aside, this may or may not have succeeded in its goal of getting some more eyes on the article, but going forward this isn't the correct venue for discussions on the detail of what should and shouldn't go in the article. Talk:J. K. Rowling is the principal place for that. Alternatively, if Adam genuinely believes that the article is no longer FA-quality, then I assume he can also go ahead and begin the process of a fresh WP:FAR by following the relevant processes there. It seems slightly dubious that this is necessary, given that an FAR was conducted relatively recently, but who knows. Again, the FAR talk page isn't where that happens though. IMHO this thread should now be archived and any relevant discussion continued on the article talk page.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Amakuru, I'm no expert on such matters, but rather than ANI, isn't WP:AE the appropriate forum should further attention be required? JKR is under double (BLP and gender-related) WP:CTOP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well perhaps, although given that I don't think Adam's objections to your conduct relate specifically to gender or BLP issues, I'm not sure where the boundary between AE and AN/I lies. Hopefully that's all hypothetical anyway, because I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that visiting any such venue would be helpful, but that's for Adam to decide.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. In fact I might go slightly further. Any sympathy I had for Adam Cuerden's original complaint evaporated when I read I don't really think you're rational when it comes to this subject. That's outrageous. Impinging or questioning the mental health of a fellow editor. And no, it's not just a hyperbole or an unfortunate choice of words. It's fucking blockable. Straight out block for one of the worst aspersions that can be made. Absolutely outrageous comment. It's probably too late now, per PUNITIVE, but yesterday Cuerden would have been at ANI. Feet wouldn't have touched the floor. In case I haven't made myself clear: it was an absolutely fucking outrageous comment, completely egregious, totally beyond the pale. Before the conversation continues, and before the original complaint is allowed further oxygen, I'd expect an apology for those remarks at the very least. ——Serial Number 54129 20:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would not primarily read a statement about not being rational when it comes to a particular subject—as opposed to not being a rational person more broadly—as referring to mental health, but to emotional involvement/attachment/[insert better word here]. If somebody said to me that I'm not rational when it comes to the people I love, I would take that simply as a statement of fact. But that's just me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Quite. I'm not saying Sandy is insane, I'm saying that her actions around the J.K. Rowling article do not show judgement, but do so extreme emotional attachment to a version that has severe problems. I didn't want her here, because she's spent the last four months of the debate on the transphobia section of the article pooh-poohing every change, and that after it took nearly a month and many, many editors just to pry open the possibility of changing the article.

  I stand by my beliefs that Sandy's editing on Talk:J. K. Rowling and reversions on J. K. Rowling indicate a long-term pattern of WP:OWN issues. And my plan, in future, is to actively avoid anything to do with her. But I did want to get this one article up to FA quality first, after having to suffer through a six-month process. But after that, I am done. I never want to work with Sandy Georgia again. I never want to SEE Sandy Georgia again. In fact, screw it, I'm done now. Maybe some of you defending her can try editing with her on any point she disagrees with you on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe when pretty much everyone is disagreeing with you, they aren't the problem. Hog Farm _Talk 00:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, while I try to not make this about Sandy specifically, I do think that there are several editors over at the JK Rowling talk page, including Sandy, who don't seem to want to allow any significant changes to the article without at least ten exhausting rounds of discussion.

  And no, WP:FAOWN doesn't cover this. That says that featured articles may well be the way they are for a good reason and so significant changes should be discussed on the talk page. It doesn't say that a significant change that everyone fundamentally agrees should happen from the get-go should take months to happen and be conducted entirely through waves upon waves upon waves of talk page drafts.

  Which is to say, I feel like people here are reacting to Adam's tone (which I agree is bad) and not really his substance. Loki (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  "several editors" (raises hand, waves it in the air). I guess that would be me. WTF?? The atmosphere is extremely toxic, but you want to pin that on me, at least be honest about it. Victoria (tk) 01:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am trying very hard to not pin it to any specific person because I don't think that's constructive. I don't blame any specific person because I don't think that if any of you went to some other page you would start editing like this.

  Rather, I think that the process of getting this article up to featured status involved a bunch of ultimately counterproductive practices that led to an article that was in a featured-quality state at one point but which is incapable of maintaining that state going forwards. Those practices appear to have become embedded in the culture of this talk page. I would like to convince people that this page is not different from any other page and that these practices are not suddenly good ideas on this page when they would obviously not be elsewhere, even though they may have seemed at the time to be important to raising this page to featured article status in the first place. Loki (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is unbecoming, Loki, and that surprises me from you. At the point that someone installed a draft where we had almost achieved consensus, did you see anyone revert? Did you notice that at least five different editors submitted drafts and how many editors were involved? My involvement in article was to fix all the citation errors that were included in the install, because it was done without tidying and without syncing to the lead, and mentioned some repetition, but no one has objected to the install. Instead, we went on about our work with other sections, when this thread suddenly appeared. This is all very odd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  After multiple requests that he stop from multiple different editors, Adam Cuerden at 23:32, 22 July 2024, has continued accusations that are, naturally, diffless, because they are false.

  I have worked on, and advocated for, rewriting the transgender content right along with everyone else, and explained multiple times that a well-attended RFC forced us to dated wording during the FAR, that we all acknowledged would have to be rewritten -- and multiple editors engaged to do just that, now installed.

  Someone with some authority should deal with this, as it's now beyond the pale. You don't get to besmirch another editor without diffs this far after you've been asked to stop making false and personal attacks. And now another editor is repeating same, again without diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)