Talk:C. J. Chivers

C. J. Chivers was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 28, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C. J. Chivers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Columbia University Start‑class Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 10, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:C. J. Chivers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be conducting the review for this article; I recently read The Gun and was impressed with Chivers' work. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A main issue with this article is the imbalance of it's focus. There is a large section focusing on the awards that Chivers has received, and very little about his early life, military service, and personal life. Additionally, many events in Chivers' career aren't explained, as his work in 9 countries is summarized in a single sentence. There is additional information that can be found in the descriptions of the awards he receives, but information about the places he has gone belongs in a section describing his career. I'm going to hold off on detailed feedback for individual sectons in this article, as much of its content would change based upon my feedback. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?
1.1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

1.2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
2.1. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Many of the citations are missing dates, authors, or other information. A quick check on some of the articles referenced shows they do have authors and dates displayed on the website, which should be in the citation.

2.2. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

2.3. It contains no original research:
No concern.

2.4. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig shows a high degree of copied text, mostly from the quote about Chivers' style of reporting by collecting spent ammo. I would argue that the long quote describing his actions deserves to be paraphrased.

2.5. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
See comments above.

2.6. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
As addressed above, the article is very imbalanced in its focus, with a large volume of text describing the individual awards that Chivers has received.
3. Is it neutral?
3.1. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No concern.
4. Is it stable?
4.1. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No concern.
5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
5.1. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

5.2. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Are there any more pictures of Chivers that could be used in this article? There is only the picture in the infobox, and I would assume there are additional pictures of him that would be relevant to the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

As mentioned on the nomination template note, the nominator for this article has since been banned. Should another user decide to take up improving the article to continue the GA review, please leave a comment! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this page has not been improved at all, I will be failing this GA review. If a future editor decides to improve this article and renominate it, feel free to reach out! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]