- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Endorse fail. The article has received a thorough GAN review, raising substantial issues concerning the GA criteria, which have not been addressed. In particular there are 3a/3b concerns about unnecessary detail and coverage, as well as problems with the prose, and the lead. In addition the Musical Styles section is almost entirely sourced to his autobiography, and the infobox image has been deleted as non-free. Placing articles on hold is optional, and entirely at the reviewer's discretion. Geometry guy 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Cavie78's nomination was far too nitpicky. First, it's obvious to me that the reviewer overlooked the footnote at WP:WIAGA saying "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." The article may not expound on everything that it possibly can, but I fail to see how it's any less detailed than other GA-class articles that I worked on, such as Joe Diffie or Clay Walker. Almost all of the things that Cavie78 raised don't seem like they're crucial to GA. To wit:
- "Why was Davenport interested in working with him?" — checked through Tritt's autobio, which covers the Davenport relationship in detail but doesn't explain why Davenport was interested in working with him.
- "Why did Tritt leave Warner/Columbia?" — found this for Columbia but extensive search finds nothing covering his split from Warner.
- "What has Tritt been doing since 2008?" — Fallen off the radar. Gnews and Gbooks, plus sites such as Country Standard Time, say nothing at all about him after 2008.
- "Why has Tritt worked as an actor?" "Why was he involved in these films in particular?" — Now where am I gonna find answers to that? He covers the acting career some in his autobiography but never gets into any sort of detail as to why.
- As far as the lack of negative press, I think that the middling album reviews are pretty much the closest thing he's ever received, besides the non-feud with Billy Ray Cyrus (which wasn't in the article when nominated).
Furthermore, while Cavie78 did raise several grammar and syntax issues, it would hardly have taken me any time at all to fix them had he just put the article on hold instead. tl;dr: I think this needs a second opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the issues TenPoundHammer mentions above are simply four questions that I asked as the lack of information seemed odd. The reasons why I actually failed the article are dealt with in the 'Major issues' section of the GA review. Cavie78 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the lack of content beyond his musical aspects, I searched all over and found almost nothing at all about his personal life or artistic development toward the albums. He also doesn't seem to have had any notable TV performances or awards beyond the ones listed already. Either way, I still think that topics like that would fall under "significantly weaker than comprehensiveness" anyway, and I'm really looking for a second opinion here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth (I'm responding to a Village Pump request for more people to get involved in the discussion), the article doesn't seem very good to me, although I am not an expert on WP's "good article" thing. The intro gives too many details without a general assertion of why the guy is important. The article itself also goes into too much about each record he has released. The information is in the article but it would be much more "reader-friendly" if it gave an overview of his life and career and listed the records at the end. Also a general reader, who was not a special fan of Mr. Tritt or a country music insider, would not be interested in details of record contracts, etc. Borock (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If I had been a reviewer I would have put it on hold, but what Cavie78 did was within the reviewer discretion. I also noticed that wrong dashes are used: it should be 1991–1992 (unspaced ndash), but not 1991 – 1992 (spaced ndash) in ranges; either unspaced mdash or spaced ndash should be used, but not spaced mdash (in the lead). Ruslik_Zero 13:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not list. There are innumerable problems with this article that remain unaddressed. Like Ruslik I'd probably have put it on hold rather than fail it outright, but the article in its present state does not meet the GA criteria in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I'm not concerned with other articles, only this one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]