Talk:Fulla (doll)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fulla (doll) article.
Article policies
Fulla (doll) was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 20, 2006
Peer review Fulla (doll) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Pictures

This article requires some pictures. I actually found some pictures, so:

I know it this is a large amount of pictures, but it would really improve the quality of this article! By the way, once they're uploaded, I'll put the appropriate copyright tags and put them in the right place with captions. Thanks in advance! --71.118.87.141 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the last one, but I don't know the copyright. Could you select it before I upload another one? Tikallover 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All the pictures should have the copyright tag {{Fair use in|Fulla (doll)}} and the rationale:

*No free or public domain images have been located for this purpose. While public domain images may exist for the subject of the article, none has been located that is recent, nor do they adequately illustrate the points in the subject that are discussed in the accompanying text;

*It is a low-resolution image; (Note: This one is only to be used if it is actually a low-resolution image)

*The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the doll in any way; and

*The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the subject in any way.

But this picture should have the {{Logo}} copyright tag instead but with the same rationale. I'll add the sources after that. --71.104.179.66 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the logo should be uploaded because it is already shown in another picture. I uploaded another picture and will upload more, including some others I found, but the copyright thing is confusing me and I'm not sure how to do it. Tikallover 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, don't worry - I'll do it for you! :) You have to add the source of where you found the picture, though, since I don't know it. But I would really like it if you could upload just this picture and this picture. --71.104.176.73 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I add the source in the summery? Also, I uploaded those two pictures.

Thanks for uploading the pictures! And the source should be in a new section called Source. --71.104.187.6 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. Tikallover 11:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Good article. Minor problem of mantaining real-world context though, so fix that up some.--SeizureDog 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Delisted

Oh well, we seem to have quite different standards, but as any editor can delist, I will. I have pretty major objections here. I will try to give the article a proper review, basing it on current Good Article quality criteria. They will be listed in italics, one by one, and review comments will be put below in normal type.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
It is comprehensible and I think it is even written in English so simple that the style is not that appealing, at least in some fragments. I must note, however, that the article assumes that the reader has some knowledge of the Arabic customs and beliefs, such as what women are supposed to wear and how to behave. For example, it is said that the arms of the doll are always covered, without mentioning that this is what is expected in the Middle East by traditional/religious conventions.
Some sentences can have unintended meanings due to poor syntax, e.g. "Fulla is quite expensive, at about $10 or so for the standard doll, with the average income as around $3,100" - seems like Fullas have an average income of $3.1K, which is not the case, I guess.
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
In principle it is more or less OK with me, though I cannot help but note the fact that the article consists of quotations in a very large part! See below for more on that.
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:
I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that. Still, references should be put AFTER punctuation!
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
I would try to link more words/phrases refering to muslim culture and wardrobe/lifestyle in general, like head scarf/hijab.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Discussed below.
(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;
Loads and loads of references, very nice inline citations (bar the small deficiency in conforming with referencing style), but suprisingly, many important statements go unreferenced, as the last sentence in the lead section, or the one in the "criticism" section.
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
All sources are online, and I hope they are all reliable and contain the actual information referenced - please forgive me for not performing a thorough check here.
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
I am afraid statements like "Fulla is a role-model to most Arab children" or "Barbie is often not seen as a good role model to parents" sound very OR. My impression is that the editors here had a tendency to overgeneralize, and I think the issues here should be handled more carefully to avoid stereotypization.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
I do believe it does.
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
OK with me.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
Unfortunately the article gives the impression of being very slanted towatds the point of view of the manufacturers and promoters of the doll. This might be due to the overabundance of straight quotations. Criticism is relegated to the last skimpy section and also mostly consisting of quotations. Comparisons with Barbie read like attempts to put the doll in positive light. I had the impression of extreme POV, borderline propaganda, when reading the article for the first time, now I see this might have been not intended by the article's editors, it is just a result of the way the article is written. I recommend taking a more careful, impartial view of the subject, and also putting it more in context, as well as avoiding "value statements", trying always to relate to specific circumstances. The issues I have mentioned in other sections also emphasize the feeling of unbalanced POV.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
I have mentioned the criticism section. I believe there is more to say on that, I also think there were some voices from the Western world here. It seems like the whole Middle Eastern world bar two feminists is just in love with the doll. This might be the impression when reading opinions of the people quoted, but I guess a more balanced view is needed.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

The article exists in present form for a short time, but I am pleasantly surprised by the apparent lack of major conflicts either in edit history or on wedit page, given how this is a potentially controversial topic.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
Seems OK, though the use of so many "fair use" images worries me - they seem to serve more decorative than informative purposes. Somehow one of the editors managed to photograph a Fulla, so I guess getting more free photos should not be that much of a problem, especially given the purported popularity of the doll.
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
As I said, not the lack but the overabundance is a problem here :D

I think it is a goodwill attempt at creating a really good article on the subject, but somehow, perhaps due to editors inexperience (one of the major contributors is not even a registered user) it went awry. What I mean is that I assume no bad faith there, and I hope all editors will work further on the uneasy task of making the article present a more balanced and encyclopedic view of the topic. Bravada, talk - 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess what you're saying is that I need to make the sentences less fragmented, more references in the appropriate places, be careful of original research and be more unbiased, and remove some of the images and possibly quotations, right? And, I don't mean to jump to conclusions, but by saying, "of the major contributors is not even a registered user", does that mean that you're trying to say that unregistered users are unexperienced and aren't good at editing? Well, that unregistered user is me, and I'm sorry if I'm not doing very good, but I'm trying hard to improve this article (as I already had a peer review for it). If you're not trying to say that then...I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. But if you are, I'm sorry again for doing such a poor job on the article, and I'll try to work harder on improving it. --71.104.182.22 06:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say now that I read it I am pretty embarassed of that statement, which reflects poor stereotyping I was myself seeing hints of in the article - I just meant that somehow despite the amount of goodwill effort the article somehow falls short on pretty basic encyclopedic articles, and I was trying to explain it to myself by the fact that perhaps this might be your first (or one of the first) article and this is why it is so. In your first sentences, I would put "remove quotations" first. I believe absolutely all of them should be removed and replace by plain text, quotations should be used only when absolutely necessary, for example when quoting exact words of somebody is needed for the understanding of the issue, or when the quotation is significant in itself - I don't think we are dealing with any of those cases here.
I would try to sit back for a while and try to think how this article could be written in a way that would present this subject to somebody completely unfamiliar with the whole issue, and in an absolutely neutral way. Be careful with using any qualifiers like "good", "desirable", "most" etc. as this can make statements convey more than they were intended to. Also, don't fear to use "alleged", "claim" etc. At the moment all the obvious examples of articles dealing well with topics likely to contain POV elude me, but do browse Wikipedia, and especially Featured Articles, for good examples.
I guess some sections at least might benefit from a complete rewrite. This might not sound too good, but given the relatively small size of the article and your apparent very good knowledge of the topic, this should not be too tough a task. To use a naŃ—ve parallel, try to write as one Martian, who was recently acquainted with the topic and circumstances, would refer it to another Martian - in that the Martians have no preference for any "earthly" point of view and would treat all beliefs and value systems, as well as earthly ideas, with a grain of salt. Bravada, talk - 11:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. I also think it would be a good idea to register if you contribute so much, it takes a few seconds and makes many things much easier

Well, I fixed some stuff up now (along with another user), so all that's left if POV, right? And I might get an account. --71.105.3.234 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Boy or NewBoy?

I looked on the official Fulla site, the one that has a link at the bottom of the article, and found out that it is indeed NewBoy without a space: http://fullafulla.tripod.com/id6.html Tikallover 06:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it must be NewBoy - without the space! --71.104.182.22 07:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Muslim" v. "Arab"

The current article uses the terms Muslim and Arab interchangeably, which seems terribly incorrect. And I agree with Bravada's analysis above, even after 71.105.3.234's changes; it still reads as if it's pushing the conservative-Muslim POV, and has a lot of bald assertions that would be better phrased as paraphrased quotes: for example, "Barbie has a boyfriend, but Fulla doesn't and never will." would be better as "Joe Cool, the marketing director of FullaCorp International (or whoever), says that Fulla will never have a boyfriend." (And BTW, that's mentioned twice in the current article, in two different sections.) --Quuxplusone 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbie is a JEWISH doll??? Says who? Just goes to show how perverted the thinking is in certain parts of the world (which will go unmentioned, in the interests of political correctness).

--Gilabrand 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, because her designer Ruth Handler was Jewish. Muad (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)