User talk:kine/good articles

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

"Good articles"

I'll assume you either haven't looked over (m)any of the articles I've been fiddling with lately, or have a very, very low opinion of my writing skill. If the latter, I will expect a detailed, specific critique. o__O

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that EVERY page in Category:Pre-Imperial meets all of your criteria for "good" articles, as well as all of the Kaiser pages for the Goldenbaum Dynasty up to Friedrich III. (At the very least they're all fully cited. And the Timeline page, of course.

I did, however, deliberately avoid placing citations on the timeline page because they would make it too cluttered. It's more of a "hub" than an actual article, after all.

And, of course, there are plenty of other pages, like Galactic Empire, that are fully up-to-date content wise, but still need citations. Canary 20:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I NEVER! All my articles are of the highest quality! Pistols at dawn! And swords! (sorry, Season 2 Gaiden reference). Seriously though, let me know what you think my articles need, I'll improve em if possible. Vympel 00:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with your articles at all. The only reason i gave 2/3 for yours (and i think there were some that i missed btw, but i was tired) were that they don't have complete histories — as far as citations and all of that jazz they are cool  ♥ kine @ 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ok mate, I was joking. In terms of complete histories, it can be hard to add detail for some of the ships where all one can really say, at the end of the day, is that "yeah, the ship was there at this battle". I'm still trying to figure out a way to write up an exhaustive account of the most often appearing warships in a way that reads well. In some ways, the less well-known ships offer a better chance for completeness - the Theodoricus appeared in only one battle so that article is pretty much finished. Same with the Sindur (though there's a bit on a discrepancy that should be added), the Grendel and the Morholt, which I've all finished now. Vympel 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, i don't know if it's helpful but on the Bremen page you can see i've managed to get several paragraphs out of it despite its brief appearance. I do think in some cases that 'it was there' will be all you can say, but in many of them you can describe specific tactics and formations and stuff like that they were involved in. (I will look at some of the ones you've mentioned later)  ♥ kine @ 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thats a good piece. I could write a lot about Brunhild, obviously, so I'll be looking at doing that in the coming days. It has a long colourful history after all. Vympel 03:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I feared that would seem narcissistic. :(

Like i mentioned briefly on the page, i am biassed in large part because i have not looked closely at too many of those articles you've been working on. I will endeavour to do so and update this page later today  ♥ kine @ 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Canary — i was looking at some of the pre-Imperial articles you've mentioned. I do think they're pretty good, certainly most would fall under the 2-star category at the very least on my scale (for whatever that's worth, mind you; i'm not trying to establish myself as the article gate keeper or anything). However, since you asked for critiques, these are the — mostly very minor — issues i note in looking at a few of these pages:

1. Some of the citations are a bit off. There should always be a space before them, and if there's more than one episode you should use the {{logh|###|###|###}} format — don't use two {{logh|###}}s in a row, for example.

2. UK English should be used, ideally, per our MOS. Of course, not everyone is familiar with that, or even if they are it's hard to break a habit, so i don't hold it against anyone. But i do think it should be a prerequisite for a 'good' page. Fortunately, it's quite simple to replace a few double-quotes and z's

3. Several of the articles aren't using that standard format of 'bold subject word (Japanese: bold japanese)' at the top

4. Images should all have captions — i saw a few that didn't

Also, i've never discussed this before, so perhaps we need to discuss this in Policy if there are disagreements/questions, but my feeling is that the introductory section should not contain any unique information — it should just briefly restate a few key things that are expanded upon further down in the article. Given that that's the case, introductory paragraphs should not need citations (because the statements will be cited later)

Like i said these are minor. I should be able to take care of a bunch — going to do so now  ♥ kine @ 03:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As per my usual habit, I'll do a point-by-point reply before hitting the crux of my counterpoint.

Re1: Gotchya' --but, again, most of those pages only cite a single source.

Re2: Very minor. But, sure.

Re3: Very minor, also not entirely necessary for many articles, I think.

Re4: I disagree completely.

But let's forget about all of that: I have a very real problem with, well, just about everything you're doing here. By making a list of "good" articles (and populating that list almost exclusively with your own articles) you're doing 2 things. First, despite any claims you make to the contrary, you are setting yourself in the position of "article gate keeper." Secondly, you're also implying that neither Vympel nor myself have the requisite judgment to determine whether or not an article is "good."

Crap like this is unnecessary. Think an article is good? Go to that staff discussion page and talk about it in the featured articles bit. Think an article needs some work? Think an article is awful, or only needs a few tweaks? There's absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it--simply make some edits. Making a list like this seems (very) counter-productive to me. Canary 08:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position. I was only attempting to compile a list of articles that i thought could potentially qualify for 'featured' status according to our (mostly) agreed-upon standards, as well as articles that come close to meeting those standards (in order to identify the ones that can be very easily made to meet them just by adding a few things). They do this on Wikipedia — and they even call it 'good articles' there too — via a complicated nomination process and the creation of a bunch of categories and sub-categories and date lists and blah blah, and although that works for Wikipedia, i thought it would just be simpler for me to make a list of stuff that i thought met certain criteria.

It was not intended to be a list of what articles are good because they have seen my blessed touch or anything. Just a personal (that's why it's on my user page, not on a Project: page) list of articles i felt met our guide lines. The fact that the list is largely my articles is less a function of my superior judgement and more a consequence of the fact that, to be quite honest, i have mostly been ignoring your articles. Aside from the fact that you've asked me twice not to touch them, i simply don't have the same interests as you, so the majority of them i have never even clicked on, much less read through.

(I will also say that any lack of meeting criteria is not meant to imply that the content is not valuable. You have personally created dozens (maybe hundreds?) of articles, and every one has value and improves the site. It would be silly of anyone to even suggest otherwise. If i have given off that sort of vibe, i'm sorry — it wasn't my intention.)

I am going to keep the list up, because i feel it is still useful in helping me to understand where we are on some of these articles, but i will update it to hopefully be less controversial  ♥ kine @ 11:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Woah, bit of unrest :( I really don't have a position on this given that kine is explicitly not holding himself out to be the arbiter of all that is good on the wiki. Personally though I think we should all make it a habit to look in on each other's articles now and then, because another set of eyes is good for changing / adding things that the author may not have thought of / got wrong. That's my two cents anyway. Vympel 12:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I just get very caught up in things like organisation and structure and style guide lines, because those are what i enjoy working on :/  ♥ kine @ 13:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)