Talk:Fark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A word that may deem to be offensive to readers is used in the opening paragraph of the history section, this word needs to be removed as per WP:words to avoid. The general layout of context in the history section, could be tidied up a little, sentences are all over the place, merging some together to create paragraphs would make it more readable. Or even dividing this section into sub-sections within the history article itself, like you have done with the "features" article, sub-sections have been used there to help the section look more neat and tidy to the reader's eye.

   You mean fuck? That policy (words to avoid) doesn't apply here; it applies to use of words, not the mention of words — that is, if we're talking about the word cunt we can use the word cunt, but if we're talking about vulvas we cannot use that term. This article isn't using the word fuck; it's just talking about the word, which is completely acceptable. —Noisalt (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Words and expressions should be avoided in an article if they, are derogatory or offensive, as per WP:words to avoid. However, in outlook to this article, it does state that the creation of the naming of the website is from a drunken misspelling of an offensive word. As explanation by Curtis, is more accurate to the article, it would be preferred to stick with that, and not to stray away from what people speculate to be the real reason behind the name, that being the word "fuck". One of Wikipedia's Good Criteria guidelines is that an article must stick to the facts, and avoid straying away from the speculations. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia itself has an article named "Fuck", doesn't that in itself violateWikipedia:WTA#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid? So what's the problem? Anyway, I did check reference #2, and that first sentence under history is basically backed up by the citation. Although the Fark FAQ doesn't specifically mention "fuck" (it states "another F-word"), I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells what is being referred to here. I also don't think that, used in this context, we're not being "derogatory or offensive" or "condescending" towards the reader -- we're merely providing information on how the word "fark" originated. Dr. Cash (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, if the citation uses the term "another f-word", then this should be used in the article. Naturally anyone with common sense would know what is meant by this term, but to blatantly put the word "fuck", when that full word isn't mentioned in the citation, is straying off the main facts at hand. I clearly understand that Wikipedia has an article referring to the term "fuck", shocked me a little, but nothing else can be done about that; however, the main facts are that the article should stick to the facts that have been backed up with citational evidence, and not stray away into adding the 3 additional letter into the context. I respect your argument regarding this. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 F-words that Fark FAQ could be referring to. Fart and Fuck. I think the former could be what they meant, and not the latter, as the website is basically taking the mickey out of stuff, almost to the point of stating obvious "brain farts", or "farks" as known to some people. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The website itself is based upon "news article that are nonsense". There is another site that states "The Skeptic's News Fart Digest #1", and they cover almost identical "nonsense news" to that of Fark.com. Which suggests when Curtis refers in the FAQ about Fark being a F-word term, I think it could in fact be referring to the F-wrod "Fart". The FAQ doesn't exactly give reason to believe the F-word is 'fuck' afterall. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to play devil's advocate here I'm sure, however, I will allow benefit of the doubt and say that the term "fuck" is allowable, even though the name Fark could be seen as fart or Fuck. I'm going to pass this article for GA status. Pr3st0n (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about that: since the word doesn't appear in the source, there's no reason to use it here. —Noisalt (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some of the write-up in the history section seems to stray off the main subject, and goes into too much of an in-depth side. Simplicity to the article would be an easier approach. — This section is now satisfactory.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Please provide some more details on this one besides a mere question mark. Dr. Cash (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   I left a ? on this as at the time of review, the article was a little scattered about, and unclear to read. I wanted to make sure that the complied to NPOV, and without bias. But seeing as the matter over the word "fuck", to which I've now advised further above, need to be cleared up, then this article still has a minor lack of NPOV. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Suggestions of a rename/move has commenced. This now makes the article unstable. I would consider either waiting for the GA to pass, or if you wish to go ahead with the renaming, then cancel the GA nomination, and resubmit once the renaming has been completed. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   The GA criteria for stability have to do with edit wars and content disputes—big, back-and-forth edits that continue after the review. A minor name change that happens once doesn't affect the article's stability. —Noisalt (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   You reply as though you are an admin member, although with checks done, this is proven to be negative. All guidelines have been followed correctly. In order for a pass to be granted, all 6 points of the review need to fulfilled, as per Good Artcle Criteria. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   An edit war by definition is repeated reverts (in other words, editors disagreeing with each other and fighting it out in the article). Moving a page once, when all editors agree with the move, is not an edit war. —Noisalt (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   That may be the case, but the GA nomination is registered under the article name Fark.com, changing the name would mean that the current nomination would be void, and a new one need submitting using the new article name. This article has already been waiting for a review since July 2009, by changing the name now, would cause the article having to wait even longer for a review to take place. (Pr3st0n (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

   No, it wouldn't. There's absolutely no reason why that would be true. —Noisalt (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed it would. the current nomination is for an article called Fark.com, so any comment regarding pass/fail that are written are in connection to that article. Once the name is changed, then any comments made still go to an article called Fark.com which would no longer exist nor link up to the nomination since a name change would have occurred. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   Changing the name means Fark.com will redirect to Fark (right now it's the opposite). So it will link up. In any case, I think you have a gross misunderstanding of how things work here. We don't do ridiculous bureaucratic exercises like you're suggesting — procedure is only used when it's useful. What you're proposing is the exact opposite of useful. —Noisalt (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   On the contrary, even though fark.com would be redirected to fark; the main nomination itself on GAN would still be under Fark.com - if a change of name were to take place on the article, then consideration on editing the change of name in the GAN nomination should also be looked into. I am in no means being "bureaucratic", nor am I ignoring all rules. I follow all of Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines very seriously. I have to, as I'm current up for Adminship nomination, and abiding to these rules is up-most priority. All I have set out to do in this review is provide you with reasonable ideas according to GA review policies, to help you to gain a GA status on your article. I fail to see where that is being "bureaucratic". As soon as all the areas have been covered, than I can grant a pass - and the sooner those points are covered, the soon I can pass you GA request. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   I am going to have to disagree with the logic on an article move debate affecting an article's stability. I've been involved in the GA process for several years now, and am very familiar with the GA criteria. The stability criterion has always been interpreted as meaning that there are no major edit wars or controversial debates on the talk pages about content. If, during the course of a GA review, editors come into agreement that the article is better named one thing over the other, then that is fine. I've also seen articles that have been GA for several months or years undergo a move process without having to go through a renomination.

   In this case, it appears that the naming proposal was posted to the talk page mere minutes before your review was posted. You have to look a bit deeper at the article history, and in doing so, you'll realize that the vast majority of recent edits are by myself, with a few other edits recently. And we're not talking about reverting vandalism by anonymous editors, either; to say an article is not stable means there should be clear evidence of a major edit war between two or more editors. The lack of major debate on the talk page should be evidence of this article's stability as well. I won't put my comments pro or con on moving the article here specifically (see below). Dr. Cash (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   Based on the above factor by Dr. Cash, I have reverted my decision to fail this section, back to a pass. There is just the question surround the use of the word "fuck" in an article, which could be seen as offensive to readers, despite the fact it is merely explaining what some people thing the reasons are for the naming of the site. I would suggest that using the following Curtis states that the word "fark" originated either from a chat room euphemism for the an offensive word with a similar sounding, or from a drunken misspelling, although he tells people it's the former because it's a "better story that way." would be more appropriate, and avoiding having such obscenities being used. After all, there are younger viewers who access wikipedia, and we don't want to be teaching them foul language, to the disgust of their parents. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images seem to be within all the copyrights criteria set out. No legislations have been broken here.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

<s?#:: Due to the 'scatteredness' of context in this article, it has made it difficult to conduct a proper review. I'm willing to re-assess my review once this article has had a little 'cosmetic' clean up. Good luck improving the article — Pr3st0n (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)