Talk:2019 South Bend mayoral election/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 16:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]1. Well-written
- Prose clear, concise, and understandable
- Spelling and grammar
- MOS lead
- MOS layout
- Buzzwords/fiction/lists Tables and lists well-laid out, endorsements sourced.
2. Verifiable
- No original research None apparent
- Inline citations from reliable sources The two social media site links are from the figures' official accounts and are making official announcements, so are acceptable under the Perennial sources guideline as primary sources. The article also cites from BuzzFeed News, which, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is generally considered to be reliable (in contrast to BuzzFeed). However, the sources guideline states that editors may want to use caution in citing BuzzFeed News articles written after January 2019. I'll make a recommendation to replace the source, but if you believe it is reliable, keep it. I don't see this as a sticking point.
- No COPYVIO
- List of references properly formatted
- Citation overkill
Okay, so I am aware that WP:OVERCITE is just an essay. However, I think limiting the citations to a maximum of three for most statements (unless a claim is really complex or controversial) would definitely improve the article. I think the biggest area of this is in the candidates section, where several candidates have four or five citations demonstrating that he or she either ran or declined to run. It's my strong suggestion to try to reduce that area to one or two citations per candidate. If you would like, I can ask for a second opinion on the topic, since WP:OVERCITE is just an essay.
3. Broad in coverage 
- Covers main aspects
- Stays on topic
4. Neutral Neutral prose, balanced coverage
5. Stable
6. Illustrated if possible
- Media tagged for copyright status
- Media relevant
Putting on hold
[edit]Since it's been a few days without changes, I'll go ahead and put this one on hold now. @SecretName101:, if you disagree with my statements on the possible citations overkill, I'm willing to request for an uninvolved third party to comment on what they think about it. 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess I somewhat disagree with the citations overkill being much of a problem. SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SecretName101: I'll ask for a third opinion then. Hopefully somebody clarifies soon. Great job on the article! Hog Farm (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Note to second opinion The only disagreement with the article is whether some statements within it are overcited or not. Hog Farm (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Technically citation overkill is not a GA issue in itself. It is more a red flag for original research (using multiple cites that say something to draw a general conclusion) or that a statement is poorly supported (a group of poor cites does not make up for one good cite). Looking at the article I can see why this has been brought up. We don't really need cites in the lead, but we have five for one statement there. I don't see why we need multiple cites for each named candidate either. They do make the article a bit messy. Is there any particular reason why we need so many cites? AIRcorn (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SecretName101: Pinging submitter. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- For some of the overcites, I think there were reasons. But not most. SecretName101 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to trim back some of the cites that are not needed? Aaron Perri for example seems a good place to start, four of the cites are to one paper and it seems like a pretty simple sentence to source. While I don't see this necessarily as a reason to fail it is bordering on spam territory and it should be a relatively easy fix. I think it would improve the article overall. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: Would you recommend that I pass the GA now, since it's not a GA issue, or should I place it back on hold until the excessive citations issue is fixed? I'm a relatively new GA reviewer, and I haven't run into this situation before. Hog Farm (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to trim back some of the cites that are not needed? Aaron Perri for example seems a good place to start, four of the cites are to one paper and it seems like a pretty simple sentence to source. While I don't see this necessarily as a reason to fail it is bordering on spam territory and it should be a relatively easy fix. I think it would improve the article overall. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- For some of the overcites, I think there were reasons. But not most. SecretName101 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Probably pass it. As long as you are happy with everything else and that it is not a cover for original research or an excuse to use poor quality sources as I mentioned above. Thanks for reviewing articles and feel free to ping me if you want further advice on any reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SecretName101: I'm going to pass the article as is, per experienced reviewer User:Aircorn's statement that the citations are not a GA issue. However, I would recommend that you look into reducing some of the more extreme excessive citation issues. Thanks for your work on the article! Hog Farm (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)