Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Addition/1
=[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Addition/1|Addition]]=
: {{al|Addition|noname=yes}} • • Most recent review
: {{GAR/current}}
Uncited statements throughout the article. While some might be covered under WP:CALC, other statements such as "Likewise from augere "to increase", one gets "augend", "thing to be increased"" and "Pascal's calculator was limited by its carry mechanism, which forced its wheels to only turn one way so it could add" do need citations, in my opinion. I am happy to add citation needed templates to the article if an editor pings me. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:Wouldn't it be just as easy to fix these issues without a threatening formal process? Did you try looking for sources for the claims you were skeptical about? –jacobolus (t) 18:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|jacobolus}} Please see WP:GAR, where it says "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened." A GAR is not a threat, it is an article review process. Z1720 (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I have read that before, and I'm not insisting anything. I just generally feel that leading with formal process is usually significantly less productive than other alternatives. The most useful is doing concrete work to fix specific problems you find. The second most useful is making a careful and detailed review (like a peer review), noting down specific problems and possible types of fixes. Starting an adversarial formal process with vague / nonspecific feedback is of very limited usefulness, and typically wastes about 3x as much attention as more collaborative efforts, and even when it manages to make improvements often leaves everyone feeling grumpy. I would recommend always trying something else first, leaving the "do this or I'll take the green badge away" threats until after you run into page where other editors are either (a) completely disengaged and unwilling to discuss concrete and specific concerns, or (b) outright refuse to make changes that seem clearly required by good article criteria. –jacobolus (t) 23:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|jacobolus}} This GAR is for reassessing the article's GA status and making improvements. It is not a place to comment on the GAR process or my conduct. If you would like to continue that discussion, please post at WT:GA or an appropriate noticeboard. Would you like me to add citation needed templates to the article? Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: If you could make a detailed and specific list of everything you think is an issue, that would be helpful – and even better if you take a crack at fixing some of those yourself. Editing the article to put little "citation needed" templates is not necessary, though you can do that if you really feel like it. (It would be significantly better still if you started with that before kicking off a formal process – something to consider for next time.) I already provided references for the two specific statements you disputed; it took about 10 minutes. –jacobolus (t) 23:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: Also, I think it is the place to comment, every time someone starts such a process without trying anything else first. Judging from their behavior, people starting these processes generally seem not to realize that they have more collegial alternatives available, not involving a short time limit or an implicit threat, so it's valuable to clearly explain it to make sure they get the message. –jacobolus (t) 23:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{re|jacobolus}} I have added citation needed tags to the article where I think they are needed. I have opened a thread at WT:GA to discuss the above interaction and ways to improve the GAR process. Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::About half of these "citation needed" templates added here point at statements that in my opinion need no reference, along the lines of WP:BLUE. Of course it doesn't hurt anything to add extra references for well-known/trivial/self-evident statements, if anyone really feels like it, but not having them also is no real problem, and doesn't make the article any less "good". The others are also statements that look easy to verify, though it takes a while to do each one, and when done in a hurry the sources found are likely to be fairly mediocre and unhelpful to readers. Adding sources for these doesn't really seem urgent or the best use of editors' time, but it's probably at least marginally productive.
:::::::Frankly the several most problematic statements in this article are ones that already have footnotes, but the sources don't say what the statement claims; I don't think an audit of this type is going to fix any of those issues, and those take much more work to fix. For example, I think the claims about etymology we make here are not quite right but figuring out the actual story takes significantly more research effort. –jacobolus (t) 17:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::There is no short time limit. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/1, now open for almost four months and with no indication of closing soon. Feel free to take as much time as you need, if you want to bring this article back to GA standards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Having a look through the references, I think some of them should be removed:
- Bogomolny, Alexander (1996): seems to be a promotional site for a logic puzzle book. It is not used as a citation so I think it can just be removed.
- Dunham, William (1994), Jackson, Albert (1960), and Williams, Michael (1985) are not used as inline citations in the article. Should these be moved to "Further reading"?
Thoughts appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:Bogomolny's website Cut-the-Knot is generally great, but this particular page about [https://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/addition.shtml "What is addition"] (even if we include the sub-pages linked at the bottom) is nothing special. Since we don't currently cite it (perhaps we did at some point in the past, I didn't check) it can safely be removed from the list of citations. Feel free to move anything not currently cited to {{slink|Addition|Further reading}} and also feel free to just trim any that don't seem particularly relevant or useful. –jacobolus (t) 03:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:I just took Dunham, Jackson, and Williams out entirely. None of these seems really fit for the Further reading section. My guess is that they were previously cited for some claim or other, but at some point the claim and/or specific citation was removed. –jacobolus (t) 03:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)