Talk:Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the first draft of my review, Britishfinance. A few things to figure out but overall the article's in fine shape. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ganesha811, and very much appreciated. I have been able to fix two of the three image sourcing issues (the two that were not mine), however, I could not resolve the third (my one), as the link to the guy's site seems to have gone? It was a professional photographer who put up free samples of his work. Not sure what to do therefore about it? However, thanks again for your kind comments and your review :) Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied to the comments in the table below. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This passes GA! I'll do the needful. Congrats to Britishfinance and everyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, and for all your care and attention in the review. Britishfinance (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass. No major prose issues. I would write some things differently myself but everyone has their own style. Made a couple of very minor edits.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass, well-sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No OR found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, no issues detected. Some quoting at length, but nothing that can't be fixed in other sections of this review.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	With a topic that's been in the news a lot lately, this article has to balance covering the topic fully and avoiding recentism. I think it does a good job. No major issues found. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Hold. I think the Structure section could use some reworking. While it is important and interesting to know how the organization is set up, I'm not convinced we need a full list of Board members or a list of members of the SAC, etc. Reply. I added these sections as so many of the names (even in the committees) had Wikipedia articles – E.g. showed how high-powered CEPI is? I still think it is a useful thing to show but am open on this? Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hmm, I see your point. I do still have concerns - this information could fall out of date rapidly as the organization ages, for instance. Wikipedia is not a directory and it feels like this information is better suited for the organization's website. However, as you say, given the prominence of so many of these folks, it is worth noting their affiliation. Let me think about it a bit more and if you have any thoughts on how to restructure it to avoid the issues mentioned, go ahead and do that! It shouldn't stop this being a GA in the end but I think we should get it right. Well, it's been a few days and I haven't had any great ideas about this. What are you thinking, Britishfinance? Let me know and we can figure out how to proceed. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi Ganesha811. I am still open on what to do here. I do still like the notion of being able to show readers that CEPI has very notable members and sub-committee members (e.g. it is probably the most powerful such body outside of the Wellcome Trust)? I could delete any board members who were not notable enough to have a WP article? Alternatively, I am happy to keep watching this article and update the board members yearly if that works? Let me know what you think. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Ok, here's what I think we should do. If board members are notable enough to already have a Wikipedia article, that's great and their names should be included. But if they are not, belonging to this organization doesn't grant them notability. I think it should be restructured into a paragraph along the lines of "CEPI is organzed [as follows]. As of 2020, the board includes prominent members such as [blank] and [blankety blank]. The advisory committee has these functions and has members such as [blank] and [person 2]." Do you see what I mean? Avoiding the obligation to list every name while including those who are already prominent, and some description of the organization's structure. Let me know if this suggestion isn't clear. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Done Have made those edits Ganesha811. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	CEPI.svg (the logo) needs a source added. Reply. Somebody replaced the original logo with an SVG version, however, I have added the source to the file as it is on the front page of CEPI.. Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Great, thanks. I can't locate the source of Jeremy Farrar C0058569 Wellcome Images.jpg at the stated source - search for C0058569 returns nothing. Update the source description. Reply. I got this from Jeremy's BLP. The old "Wellcome Collection" site where this is sources is down, but I have been able to source to the main Wellcome site (and have updated the file on it. Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Great, thanks. The Source link to Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (2017, Davos).jpg is broken and so copyright cannot be easily checked. Fix link. Reply. This was an image I sourced. I was a photographer who had a site of some freely licensed panoramic photos he had taken. The link seems to be broken and I can't find it now? The image is small and low-res so perhaps it is still ok, however, I am not sure what to do here? Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I would remove the image unless you can source it reliably and therefore demonstrate it is freely licensed. Done. Could not find an alternative licensing source for that exact photo so I have removed it. Britishfinance (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Excluding sourcing/copyright images above, images are well-chosen, numerous, and well-captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.