Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1

Transformer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted for failing multiple criteria, and no objections to delisting after two months Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer article may need to be de-listed because the article is not stable due to edit warring on the lead portion of the article. See recent talk section discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cblambert (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I stated that Transformer article may need to be de-listed because the article is not stable due to edit warring in terms of the lead portion of the article it should also be clear that the article should remain as an article the way it was before GA was granted a pass grade on July 27, 2014. Refer to substantial discussion of talk page at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Transformer. Ideally, the Transformer article would remain as GA if consensus can be reached as to baseline to adopt for lead portion.Cblambert (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that consensus be in accordance with User:Constant314's suggest in WP:Talk page to the effect:

As Cblambert says, the lede was a result of a collaborative effort with give and take and compromise. I was one of the collaborators as was Clambert. I didn’t get everything that I wanted. I would like to see the lede reverted back from Wtshymanski’s most recent good faith edit, as a starting point for improvement. That would restore the wording to close to what it has been for some time. When we finish the improvement process, we may indeed wind up with exactly with Wtshymanski’s edit. I do not care for the inline internet links, but I do not have a strong opinion about them.Constant314 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Cblambert (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to WP:Talk comment by SpinningSpark 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC) "You seem to want GAR to approve the original GA so that you can continue to demand that no substantial changes to the article are made in the future.", I am emphatically not suggesting that there be no substantial changes made to the original GA. I am however stating what the history of the GA's lead has been with the expectations that future changes be done in an orderly, professional manner without need for invoking protection.Cblambert (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be clear to SpinningSpark and other editors that the current lack of consensus applies solely to the GA article's lead.Cblambert (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should lastly be clear to SpinningSpark that there can be no question of requesting "that the close explicitly makes this point (that there is no proscription against making substantial changes to GAs and that the GAR does not in any way enable such)". Treatment of the close of the GA must be no different than that of any other GA. The alternative to this proviso on SpinningSpark's part is to request reviewer to quick fail the GAR process.Cblambert (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am trying to understand something here...what is the point of this GAR? This seems to be a content dispute about what to include or what not to include within the article's Lead section. I see that there has been some discussion on the talkpage and some continuing edits/reverts to content but that doesn't indicate that this GA should necessarily be delisted or even reassessed. Yes, if at the time a GA Review was being done of the article there was an ongoing edit-war/content-dispute during the process then that unstable state would be enough to probably Fail the article on #5 ( Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.) but that is not the case here. Shearonink (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cblambert says "I am emphatically not suggesting that there be no substantial changes made to the original GA". However, he repeatedly demands that changes to the lead are discussed first; see this talk page demand, and his subsequent refusal to withdraw the demand when challenged. The recent edit warring in part concerned external links to the Electropedia website. Cblambert repeatedly restores these referring his opponent to a nonexistent talk page discussion [1][2][3][4] (there are many more reversions, I have listed here only the ones that refer to a nonexistent discussion of Electropedia links). There seems to me to be a bit of a WP:OWN problem here. If nothing else comes out of this GAR, I hope that the closer makes it clear that there is nothing in the GA process that justifies reverting other editors solely because one is reverting to the version approved at GA. Every edit should be considered on its intrinsic merits.

On the issue of the Electropedia links, inline links to external sites are deprecated by WP:EL within the body of the article. It is hard to fathom why we need links to external sites for basic definitions at all, but more than that, after having these removed several times by different editors, Cblambert has now moved them to the EL section with inline references linking to them. This is surely a breach of WP:LAYOUT, in spirit if not explicitly, and is consequently a potential failure of criteria 1b, 2a, and possibly also 2b (under scientific citation guidelines).

This GAR seems to have been provoked in part by my comment that the lead has never come anywhere near close to meeting WP:LEAD. If I am right, this is a criterion 1b failure of course. The measured size of the article is 37 kB (an underestimate due to part of the article text being indented and thus not counted). The size of the lead is only 1 kB. That in itself should be enough to hint that the lead is deficient. For instance, the article devotes a large proportion of its space to transformer construction, but there is nothing on this in the lead. Possibly the second most space in the article is devoted to transformer parameters. Again, nothing in the lead. Other than a mention of Faraday's law of induction, there is nothing on the history of the transformer, another substantial section. That last deficiency is particularly sad as the history of the technology might be of more interest to the general reader than than the minutiae of the technical details. SpinningSpark 15:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Spinningspark that the Transformer article does not meet GA guidelines in terms of the lead, so the Transformer's GA should be de-listed.Cblambert (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]