Talk:Jacinda Ardern/GA2
This article was competently assessed in March, and I do not challenge the assessment at the time. Back then, Ardern was strongly praised and the article reflected that. Since then, Ardern has been at the centre of a number of controversies. Biden's recognition of the Armenian Genocide brought criticism of Ardern's genocide denial, with critics in major newspapers noting how Ardern places herself on the side of the Turkish regime in denying a genocide, in sharp contrast to most traditional NZ allies and democracies. Similarly, Ardern has been accused both at home and abroad of refusing to call out the Chinese genocide of the Uyghurs, yet again placing herself more in line with the regime in question than with traditional NZ allies and democracies around the world. In short, Ardern no longer enjoys nearly as popular press coverage as she did at the time of the assessment of the article, and the very positive tone (and absence of criticism) now comes across as being at odds with how Ardern's policies are discussed both home and abroad in reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Left a note at the New Zealand wikiproject as this ia an article that I imagine editors would be keen to get up to standard. Aircorn (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the issues raised above should be discussed and then incorporated into the article. I do not agree that a GA Reassessment is the right way of going about this. Seems heavy-handed. Why not just float the issue here and see what others think? Why tie down a GA reviewer? By all means, ask for a GA Reassessment after you tried to resolve this via a discussion and that approach failed. Schwede66 09:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Schwede66, that is a valid point, thanks. In the past, I've seen other Good Articles' editors be a bit defensive "This is a good article, no need to change". That's what I opted for this approach, but if edits about controversy and criticism can be included in some format, obviously sourced, without a reassessment, then all the better. Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since this ended up on my watchlist I may as well opine. There is more wrong with this article than the potential NPOV issues raise. At the moment it has a lot of WP:Proseline. I count 26 paragraphs starting with On/In [date] in the "Prime minister (2017–present)" section alone. That's about two thirds of them, including one whole subsection. I know it gets like that when a currently active BLP is being edited, but GA's deserve better. Aircorn (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I noticed that as well. At times it reads as something her press officer might put out about her activities. Not obviously biased, but with a positive tilt to tell her "daily" activities. Jeppiz (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since this ended up on my watchlist I may as well opine. There is more wrong with this article than the potential NPOV issues raise. At the moment it has a lot of WP:Proseline. I count 26 paragraphs starting with On/In [date] in the "Prime minister (2017–present)" section alone. That's about two thirds of them, including one whole subsection. I know it gets like that when a currently active BLP is being edited, but GA's deserve better. Aircorn (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Schwede66, that is a valid point, thanks. In the past, I've seen other Good Articles' editors be a bit defensive "This is a good article, no need to change". That's what I opted for this approach, but if edits about controversy and criticism can be included in some format, obviously sourced, without a reassessment, then all the better. Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the issues raised above should be discussed and then incorporated into the article. I do not agree that a GA Reassessment is the right way of going about this. Seems heavy-handed. Why not just float the issue here and see what others think? Why tie down a GA reviewer? By all means, ask for a GA Reassessment after you tried to resolve this via a discussion and that approach failed. Schwede66 09:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do think that the article could work harder to be NPOV and fix prose issues, but I'm not convinced that the Armenian genocide issue is WP:DUE here. NZ is just one of the many countries that doesn't have a position on it. Also I do not think it goes in line with WP:BLP to label Ardern a proponent of "genocide denial", as far as I can tell she never made any statements on it. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have worked on some of the prose issues, but unfortunately the issue is endemic. It probably should never have been passed in this state and given the lack of interest from other editors and my limited time I think delisting is probably the best course with this one. Aircorn (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: Is this ready to be closed? Aircorn (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: Apologies for the delay. If the article is delisted, this can be closed. I just reviewed the article again and I still believe it skews too much towards the positive (compared to articles about many other politicians). As I already mentioned, there is no deliberate bias nor do I think there's any one really major issue but - as you also said yourself - it probably should not have passed GA. The overall tone when reading it is that positive aspects are very much put forward while criticism is almost absent. Again, that is the impression when comparing the article to similar politicians serving as PMs (or similar) in other democratic countries. Probably not skewing positive enough to put a POV tag on it, but too much for it to be considered a 'good article'. Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- As the person opening an individual GA it is your decision to close it. If you want it to be closed as delist then I can do the technical side of it. Aircorn (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can close this if you want. I feel it has had more than enough time Aircorn (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: Apologies for the delay. If the article is delisted, this can be closed. I just reviewed the article again and I still believe it skews too much towards the positive (compared to articles about many other politicians). As I already mentioned, there is no deliberate bias nor do I think there's any one really major issue but - as you also said yourself - it probably should not have passed GA. The overall tone when reading it is that positive aspects are very much put forward while criticism is almost absent. Again, that is the impression when comparing the article to similar politicians serving as PMs (or similar) in other democratic countries. Probably not skewing positive enough to put a POV tag on it, but too much for it to be considered a 'good article'. Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: Is this ready to be closed? Aircorn (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: I feel this has been abandoned. I am closing it as Delist mainly on the prose issues I identified. Aircorn (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Spilt article into 'Premiership of Jacinda Ardern'
editA lot of world leaders have a premiership articles, Jacinda does but it's redirected to the Prime Minister section of this article. Would someone create Premiership of Jacinda Ardern from the section here and from the History section of Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand, to match other world leaders? Thanks!! 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:D09B:85EB:A0BA:1265 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary - also, the phrase 'premiership' is not used in New Zealand in relation to its prime ministers. Newzild (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)