Talk:Cornell Botanic Gardens/GA2
(Redirected from Talk:Cornell Plantations/GA2)
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has two major problem areas.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR):
- Most of this article relies upon Cornell University publications and websites as a source, and the balance relies upon Cornell-related newspapers and magazines. The lack of fully third-party sourcing is a major shortcoming this article.
- Cornell Daily Sun and Cornell Alumni News are independently owned and operated outside of University control. As a practical matter, the Plantations does not control any media other than its own webpages and official reports. Racepacket (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with Cornell University. The student newspaper is independent but may not have a lot of perspective on this particular topic. And the job of the alumni publication is to promote the university and get more alums to donate. I'm not saying they can't be used as sources, but in any case they are only used a handful of times. The point still remains that Cornell's website supplies the large majority of the sourcing for this article, and that this article suffers badly from a lack of diversity of sources and would benefit from ones that have a completely non-Cornell perspective. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have the Cornell Alumni News confused with the Cornell Alumni Magazine or the Cornell Communique or even the Cornell Chronicle. The Magazine and Communique have the job of getting more alumni to donate. The Cornell Alumni News was fiercely independent of the administration, and irritated the administration to no end by its honest coverage. I have looked at the other abroretum articles, they are also mostly sourced from self-published materials. If there were any controversy as to the facts, I would agree with the sourcing concerns. However, we are describing the set of gardens and nature areas, and independent third party sourcing of such undisputed, factual matters is rare. If you have any sources that you feel that I have overlooked, I will be happy to give them careful consideration. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- What the Cornell Alumni News is doesn't matter in this case, because it isn't cited in the article. The Cornell Chronicle is, which is directly published by the university. I'm not quarreling about the sourcing of undisputed facts, but I am looking for third-party sources that further convey the level of significance of the arboretum. I'll look to see what I can find. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have the Cornell Alumni News confused with the Cornell Alumni Magazine or the Cornell Communique or even the Cornell Chronicle. The Magazine and Communique have the job of getting more alumni to donate. The Cornell Alumni News was fiercely independent of the administration, and irritated the administration to no end by its honest coverage. I have looked at the other abroretum articles, they are also mostly sourced from self-published materials. If there were any controversy as to the facts, I would agree with the sourcing concerns. However, we are describing the set of gardens and nature areas, and independent third party sourcing of such undisputed, factual matters is rare. If you have any sources that you feel that I have overlooked, I will be happy to give them careful consideration. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with Cornell University. The student newspaper is independent but may not have a lot of perspective on this particular topic. And the job of the alumni publication is to promote the university and get more alums to donate. I'm not saying they can't be used as sources, but in any case they are only used a handful of times. The point still remains that Cornell's website supplies the large majority of the sourcing for this article, and that this article suffers badly from a lack of diversity of sources and would benefit from ones that have a completely non-Cornell perspective. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cornell Daily Sun and Cornell Alumni News are independently owned and operated outside of University control. As a practical matter, the Plantations does not control any media other than its own webpages and official reports. Racepacket (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most of this article relies upon Cornell University publications and websites as a source, and the balance relies upon Cornell-related newspapers and magazines. The lack of fully third-party sourcing is a major shortcoming this article.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The article is too shallow in terms of overall perspective and analysis (in large part due to the lack of third-party sourcing). How do the Plantations compare with similar gardens elsewhere? How common is it for universities to run such operations? How high a priority do the Plantations get in Cornell's budget decisions? In contrast, the article is way too deep in terms of excessive detail. The long lists of gardens and nature areas run against WP:NOTADIR. The "Main article: F. R. Newman Arboretum" xref is upside down, meaning the main article is shorter than the section in this article that is supposedly summarizing it.
- That is an argument for expanding the F.R. Newman Arboretum article. Many Universities operate arboretums or have teaching collections. The Cornell Plantations' state-wide scope and unusual collections and geological features (two gorges with waterfalls, a deep glacier-formed lake) are rare. Racepacket (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article would benefit from a third-party source that says these things. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have re-read [WP:NOTADIR]], but it is not clear to me how the article is running against those policies. What change are you recommending? Removal of the bullet list of nature areas? Racepacket (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are two long lists in the article. I'll take a look at other arboretum articles and see how this compares. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have re-read [WP:NOTADIR]], but it is not clear to me how the article is running against those policies. What change are you recommending? Removal of the bullet list of nature areas? Racepacket (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article would benefit from a third-party source that says these things. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is an argument for expanding the F.R. Newman Arboretum article. Many Universities operate arboretums or have teaching collections. The Cornell Plantations' state-wide scope and unusual collections and geological features (two gorges with waterfalls, a deep glacier-formed lake) are rare. Racepacket (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is too shallow in terms of overall perspective and analysis (in large part due to the lack of third-party sourcing). How do the Plantations compare with similar gardens elsewhere? How common is it for universities to run such operations? How high a priority do the Plantations get in Cornell's budget decisions? In contrast, the article is way too deep in terms of excessive detail. The long lists of gardens and nature areas run against WP:NOTADIR. The "Main article: F. R. Newman Arboretum" xref is upside down, meaning the main article is shorter than the section in this article that is supposedly summarizing it.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Hard to know, given the lack of third-party sourcing.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- For an article of this nature, more than one image of the subject itself would be desirable.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article would need a major overhaul to reach GA status, and thus placing on hold is not appropriate. (The nominator has recently been indef-blocked, but I had already formulated my view on the GAN before then.)
- Pass/Fail:
- I question whether the reviewer has sufficient background in horticulture to evaluate the appropriate level of detail for the garden descriptions. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a horticulturist, but I have walked through many an arboretum. Again, you raise a good point regarding what similar articles look like. I'll take a look. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I did not mean to question your good faith and appreciate the edits that you have made. I can only find stubs at other herberia and arboreta. There are no GA/FA models. Although many universities have teaching gardens and/or teaching forests, they have not attracted the attention of serious Wikipedia editors. Some are clear copy and paste from the official websites. Racepacket (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.