Talk:Angolan pavilion/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 14:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pick up the review of this for a fellow WikiCup competitor this weekend. stay tuned. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologizes for the delay, real life issues.

GA Review summary

G1 - Well written

TBD

G2 - Verifiable

TBD

G3 - Broad in coverage

✓ Pass

G4 - Neutral

✓ Pass

G5 - Stable

✓ Pass

G6 - Illustrated

✗ Fail - But this is not a hard requirement, it can pass without it.

Review

Toolbox

- Copyvio Detector - No issues ✓ Pass
- DAB Links - None ✓ Pass
- CHecklinks - The tool called out two links, but I opened them and checked and they are working, so no worries there ✓ Pass

General comments

Lead is one paragraph, too short according to WP:LEAD
Edit history wise it looks stable and no edit wars ✓ Pass
Is there no appropriate info box for this article? I know the Venice biennale has one, but does it make sense to add one here?

Don't think so. None of the national pavilion articles have them, as they're sub-exhibitions. czar 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 is covered in quite some detail, but 2015 has less and then 2017 and 2019 has hardly any coverage. There needs to be more detail on the subsequent years for this to have comprehensive coverage - in it's current state fails criteria G3.

czar - Right now the article fails criteria "3" as it is not broad in coverage, hardly has anything on 2 of the 4 years. This would need to be addressed before I can go much further in the review. Not sure how you want to handle this - I can give you like a week to expand the article on the 2017/2019 stuff and then to the reviewe. Or if you think you need more time to properly develop sections on 2017 and 2019 I can fail it now, give you time to work on it and then you can re-nominate when you've expanded those sections? I'll be happy to work with whichever approach you prefer. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MPJ-DK, thanks for the look-through. What you describe is a matter of due weight, specifically proportional coverage. This recurring exhibition had a breakthrough first year and minimal coverage in subsequent years. The emphasis is not on equal coverage each year but on proportional coverage reflecting the amount of secondary source coverage year-to-year. I could further reduce 2013 if you think that is somehow a weight concern but per the sources, most coverage is about the 2013 exhibition, and subsequent exhibitions received far less mention. Per my read of sources, this topic is complete: it uses every viable source available. Are there any "main aspects of the topic" covered in reliable, secondary sources that the article does not reflect? Otherwise I cannot cover what isn't written. czar 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the dillema with sources. And looking at it, I get that there is nothing to put for 2019, unless they revealed why they didn't participate. Is there anything at all you can find in the 2017? That's the one that sticks out to me - I am not saying you needto invent sources etc. but is there really no other information? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I do not know the sources but here are a couple of things I found with a quick search for "Vienna Biennale" Angola 2017 MPJ-DK (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided these as either repackaged press releases or similarly promotional. (In general, I've minimized use of Contemporary And, which I treat as a primary/affiliated source and mainly use for interview (WP:SPS) content.) I used that ANGOP source in the Antonio Ole article but unless I'd be importing the names of the individual videos, not sure how it'd help the article. Note that it's also state press and fairly hagiographic ("one of the country’s most renowned and greatest artists", "also acclaimed as a photographer and film director"). If you think it's appropriate/necessary, I can add them, but I personally avoid adding lists of information in prose that read as trivia, especially when that information has not been subject to discussion by a reliable, secondary source. czar 05:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly thought that there may be details you could pull, and I do see you added in some details to give us as much info on 2017 as available. By my searches there probably is not that much else to add without risking it becoming fluffy. Thank you for giving it a shot and based on my searches I agree that you've probably added in anything that is availble. it passes the "Completeness" criteria, I'll resume my review for the G1 and G2 critia. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MPJ-DK, checking back, when you have a moment czar 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar thanks for the reminder, it had honestly slipped my mind, sorry, but I will complete the review this weekend. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Czar with the rewrite done etc. I think this looks good, passing for GA. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]