Talk:Jason Jones (programmer)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 06:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Review in progress. Will get back to you tomorrow. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 06:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busy day at work, but I didn't forget you. Need 24 more hours. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real life takes precedence :) No problemo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Did not assess
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
n/a as a result of issues below

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
sources reliable, but non-topical

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Covers major aspects of Bungie, but not the article subject.

B. Focused:
Not focused on the article subject (Jason Jones).
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article needs major work to fix the issues identified.

Review Notes[edit]

Alright, here I am. First off, I'm not sure that this person meets notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Specifically Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria states that

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[1] and independent of the subject.^[2]
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

All the bungie.net sources are primary (could be seen as self-published, but that's actually allowed for BLPs), so they don't count for notability, and Mr. Jones is not the subject of any other the other sources; he is simply mentioned in some of them (but not all). What are irrefutably notable are the games he worked on. You're going to need to find more independent secondary or tertiary sources that talk about Mr. Jones, not just to get this article to GA status, but to keep it out of AfD. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 07:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out the GA the criteria do not mention notability at all. It's an entirely different matter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about your point carefully, and asked for advice on a couple other talk pages. Here is what I've arrived at: WP:GA states that: "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality." An article which is not notable degrades the quality of the entire encyclopedia. Therefore, non-notable articles are de facto not good quality. It was suggested that I AfD the article now, but instead I'm going to put it on hold and give you a week to come up with some sources that will show that the individual in question is notable. If you can produce a single article that is about Jason Jones himself, and not about something else and it just mentions Jason Jones as related to the subject of the article, I'll continue with the review. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 06:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've figured out what the problem is: this isn't an article about Jason Jones. It is an article about Bungie. I'm sorry, but it can't meet the GA criteria in its current form. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 01:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that's bullshit. Put your money where your mouth is and AfD it, then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. If you're going to have a bad attitude, then I'm going to WP:FUCK off. This can languish until someone else takes care of it. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 15:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer has WP:FUCKed off, I am classing as a fail and immediately relisting at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[note3-1] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note4-2] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[1]

[2]