Talk:Ram Vaswani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page.
Ram Vaswani was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Reviewed version: September 10, 2006
Ram Vaswani was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Reviewed version: August 12, 2006

Contents

[edit] Failed GA

I failed this article due to the fact that:

  • It is very short
  • It has a "Trivia" section, violating criteria 3b
  • It has only one image.

Some P. Erson 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion followed up at User talk:Some P. Erson and User talk:Essexmutant. Hopefully everything resolved now. Essexmutant 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood

There does not appear to be any information available in the public arena on Vaswani's childhood or education. If anyone has any referenced information on this, please improve the article by adding it. Thanks. Essexmutant 00:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I declined GA status after reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria listed below.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

  • The intro is very short compared to the recommendation of WP:LEAD. The most glaring absence is the assertation of notability that should be right there in the into paragraph. While the intro doesn't serve as just a regurgitation of what's to follow in the article, it should provide a reason to continue reading the article and a general overview of what's to come.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.- Needs Improvement

  • I don't feel the most references meet the burden of being reliable sources. I'm particularly concern with the large majority of references to the blog/forum site on the Hendon Mob. If you look at the guideline on Online sources you'll note that blog sources are not considered as favorably because they are not peer reviewed or scrutnized for any outside verification. I wouldn't balk at a few referencing minor claims. But with the exception of the Daily Telegraph, Swimming with Devilfish and maybe the poker.SportingLife.com refs, almost all them stand on sketchy ground. With the higher standard of being a living person bio, I can not pass an article for GA status in good conscious without having clear cut reliable sources.
  • The in-line citations are all bunched up at the end of the paragraph, rather then at the end of the statement they are purported to support. This makes verification difficult unless the entire paragraph is being referenced by one cite. The presence of multiple citations and trying to figure out what verifies what is cumbersome. See Wikipedia:Footnotes]. While not a make or break consideration for GA, I would caution against over-referencing non-controversial details. In the current intro paragraph, I'm not sure of the need for 4 references.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Pass

  • I appreciate the active work that the editors of the article have made in trying to find more "extra-curricular" infomation to flesh out the background and life away from poker. Especially with the considerations of WP:BLP and the need to make sure there is nothing potentially slanderous listed, this is not an easy task. While the article still looks thin in those areas, I will acknowledge that effort with a pass.
  • On a side note, I did leave the article curious about his overall signifigance to the sport. If that could be highlighted more, that would be a plus. Maybe include some information on how he got his various nicknames.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

  • The article maintains an excellent NPOV balance.

5. It is stable - Pass

  • The article has progressed gracefully and the editors responded astutely to previous GA review.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

  • Excellent pictures.


I encourage the editors to resubmit for GA nomination after these concerns are address. Overall, I thinks this article presents an interesting portrait or an interesting individual and I thank the editors for the time and effort they have put in to get the article to this point. If there is any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. Agne 00:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Comments left on your Talk page. Essexmutant 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement

I am moving a comment from my talk page here so that I can respond and keep the discussion centralized Agne 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for taking the time to review the article on Ram Vaswani. I appreciate the amount of time members of the project take in reviewing these.

In regards to your points about reliable sources:

  • I would like to suggest that The Hendon Mob tournament links can be considered reliable sources. As Vaswani is one of the members of The Hendon Mob itself, then surely all the information on the site can be considered reliable? (In fact, Robert Butt is an employee of Vaswani.) Links to the Hendon Mob Database are also used in previously-passed GA candidates Joe Beevers, Barny Boatman and Mike Matusow.
  • The articles by Joe Beevers are also published on The Hendon Mob site.
  • The Card Player Magazine article was published in print worldwide, and the online version is just an archived copy.
  • I presume there are no issues with the references to which Vaswani is the author. Essexmutant 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am still not confident in the Hendon Mob being considered a reliable source, namely because the lack of peer review. Even a published autobiography is still fact checked by staff at the publisher for verification. I would recommend approaching the topic with some of the editors on the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page. If consensus would deem those acceptable, I would relent. As I mentioned above, having a few of the Hendon Mob ref for some of the minor/non-controversial details could be left but I don't think they should be behind the majority of citations.
As for the comparison to the Joe Beevers, Barny Boatman and Mike Matusow articles--I have to say that I'm skeptical about those articles qualification for GA status and will probably discuss my concerns with the reviewers who pass them. I wouldn't use them as a comparision points for this article. Agne 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to the reliability of sources on wikipedia, it is a thankless, but very important job. But I'm afraid that I disagree with your interpretation in this case. Peer review is not required by WP:V for good reason. Peer review means that an article is read by at least one other competent person in a given field and approved by that person. Newspapers are not peer reviewed, they have editorial staff and journalistic standards, but often the articles are reviewed by someone else who has not done sufficient research to verify the claims in the article. (Just look at all the factual inaccuracies that find their way into articles about wikipedia if you doubt this.) With respect to online sources, WP:RS says Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Essexmutant has provided a sketch of the process used for the hendon mob webpage at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. I believe this process meets the requirements outlined at WP:RS and is probably as reliable as any other process for reporting tournament results. I suspect it is identical to the process used by local newspapers in reporting local sporting events (like high school sports). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus of the reliability of this resource has been in place for at least two years, with two dozen or more editors refering to the resource. Confirmation of the facts in it easy to do. Any questioning of that operating consensus should have included at least ONE factual error in the massive database. The GA process is not for reinventing the wheel. 2005 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus among your project perhaps but that doesn't equate to consenus of the whole community. Essexmutant is doing an admirable job in seeking clarification from the appropriate venue- the WP:RS talk page and like him, I await their response. I don't profess infallibility and this is certainly not an endeavor to reinvent the wheel. The lower stature of blogs and personal sites in the "reliable sources" area is one that is well established and as I've mentioned often a strong concern is that it represents the majority of sources, not just a few supporting refs. The standards for GA (as well as WP:BLP) are high as these articles are meant to represent the some of the best work in the project. In an area where there is "gray", I will stray on the side of established consensus. As I mention before, Essexmutant is doing an admirable job and if consensus falls on his side then I will relent. (As a side note, I appreciate the expanded lead section. It really helps establish notability. Good job). Agne 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus among your project perhaps but that doesn't equate to consenus of the whole community." To state the obvious, neither does it not. And what does the comment about blogs and personal sites have to do with anything? While its clear you have not endeavored to check its verifiability or reliability, it appears you may not even have looked at the Hendon Mob database. "I will stray on the side of established consensus" then why the above comments? The long established consensus about a valuable resource has next to nothing to do with a GA nomination, although you should have done at least some research before dismissing what you are unfamiliar with. That is unfortunate. 2005 01:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
The Hendon Mob site is clearly a self published site. Now for "minor issues" like reporting tournamnet finish and as a supporting refs, that's fine. But it doesn't cut out to be a primary reference for biographical data according to WP:RS. But in all sincerity, the Hendon Mob is not the only shaky ref. With the exception of the Swimming with Sharks book and the Daily Telegraph, they all suffer from a lack of outside review or verification. Again, I will note that I'm not overtly concern about the tournament refs. Out of the article's 34 references, 20 of them are relating to tournaments. I can concede of them coming from the Hendon site even though a more ideal and reliable source would be the actual tournament's website or a news article. Of the remaining 14 refs- 2 of them are solid and clearly reliable, 2 are not from stellar sources but the info they ref is not major, the other 10 are very shaky and 50% of those come from the Hendon site.
While I appreciate the work of WP:POKER, I am entitled to measure articles by the consensus, policy and guidelines of the community as a whole, not the "long establish consensus" of one project. Agne 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the GA issue and how the Mob site relates to this particular article is different than your mistatements about the Hendon Mob site and the unfortunate posting of a wasteful reliable sources question. If you would have done your homework instead of making uniformed comments, there would be no problem. I hope you will be more careful in the future. 2005 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable, 2005. Try being reasonable.
As Vaswani is one of the owners of the Herndon Mob site, the site qualifies as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. Similarly, references from the New York Daily News would be considered of limited value in an article about Rupert Murdoch. In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it. Until then, it should be avoided. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal comments. You know better than that. Vaswani being an owner of the Hendon Mob site has nothing whatever to do with your incorrect conclusion-jumping about the site. You were wrong, and you should have done some research before you made several mistatements. In contrast, if you would have said a site owned by the person being profiled should be avoided as a reference if possible, you would have made a valid point, and one that is easily dealt with since there are similar sites that could be cited instead. (Still, your own point makes no sense since there is obviously independent corroboration, and many reliable sources cite it.) But again, that was not the point here. You should do minimal factual research before making inaccurate assertions about blatantly obvious reliable sources. You do seem to have moved on from that now, even if you haven't admitted the error, so we can just move on past this. 2005 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, my mistake, thought response was to someone else. Ignore. 2005 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? By personal comments, you mean I should know better than to chide you for being rude and offensive to Agne27?
What several misstatements did I make? I linked to the page that said he was one of the Herndon Mob. "Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material." comes from WP:RS My claim that the New York Daily News is controlled by Rupert Murdoch is supported [www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/bod.html here]. "In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it. Until then, it should be avoided." is again from WP:RS
You say "Still, your own point makes no sense since there is obviously independent corroboration, and many reliable sources cite it." But that IS my point. If there are good sources available, why are you using bad ones? Agne27 properly pointed out that the sources cited didn't meet the standards for reliable sources. He/she wasn't judging an article that might possibly be written someday. He/she was judging the article that was actually nominated. It looks to me like he/she did a good job. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it." - parts of the database has been cites by numerous TV channels and by print media. Surely it is better to point to the database than to reference that it was mentioned in a TV commentary? Furthermore, are we agreed that this is a suitable reference for those people that are not members of The Hendon Mob? Essexmutant 07:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No to both questions, Essex.
If you apply for a mortgage, does the mortgage company ask you whether you pay bills on time, or do they ask the credit bureau? If you apply for a job, does the potential employer believe your resume, or does he call up General Motors to confirm that you were a vice-president for the last 17 years? If Dr. Z says the new Chrysler has a wonderful ride, and the guy who lives next door is always moaning about how his back aches after riding in his Chrysler, who do you believe? If they haul you before the judge, and the judge asks you how you plead, and you say "Not Guilty", does the judge take your word and order your release? Self-interest doesn't make the herndonmob.com website invalid when it talks about the owners - but it lacks credibility.
The other issue is that it's a blog. Blogs are, by their very nature, opinions. That's the whole point of a blog. It's not a textbook, it's not news, it's a diary. Now, if you were doing an article on Tom Cruise, and he was to say on his blog that "Everything Mimi Rogers says about me is true. I slept on the couch to avoid sex with her. I'm gay." then it would be highly believable. Courts call this an admission contrary to interests. On the other hand, blogs are highly disposable. Blogs are abandoned all the time, because they are time-sensitive. Newspapers are, too, but libraries keep microfilm copies as a historical reference. You won't find copies of most old blog entries at the Wayback Machine, though. And because blogs present entries in reverse chronological order, even if you have a blog which still exists, it may be difficult to find the entry you're searching for, because so many blogs don't have permalinks. That's still another reason why blogs are generally unsuitable for citations.
The HerndonMob.com site isn't just a blog, though. It's also about poker. Poker isn't a game of luck. If it were, they'd deal the cards face up. It's a game of deceit. You want the other guy to think you're strong when you're weak, think you're weak when you're strong. Lying isn't just part and parcel of the game; it's the very heart of it. And the deceit doesn't end when the hand is over. Players muck their hands if they've lost, because disinformation is an advantage. And consequently, anything that comes from HerndonMob.com has to be considered potential disinformation. If a good poker player tells you he has five fingers on each hand, you need to count them. If a great poker player tells you he has five fingers on each hand, you better count them twice. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I give up. From this conversation; from Wikipedia; from being an admin; from the lot. I simply can't be bothered anymore. Essexmutant 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ramvaswani2.jpg

Image:Ramvaswani2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ramvaswani3.jpg

Image:Ramvaswani3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)