Talk:Dana Gluckstein/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hello, I intend to review this article later. 09:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Image copyright: File:DIGNITY In Honor of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Book cover.png needs VRT permission as it is a book cover not in the PD or under a suitable CC.
• Neutrality: Looking at the history, the article has suffered from lots of WP:PROMOTIONAL content. While the nominator has tried to clean up such issues, I still see lots of non-neutral wording to the point where this article reads like a CV. Examples include:
  • “internationally recognized portrait photographer” (common Puff wording)
  • “Human rights activist” (that’s not a vio of NPOV issue in itself, but it’s not verified from the cited sources)
  • “photographed award-winning annual reports”
  • “used her international public platform”
  • “Following this milestone”
  • “raise awareness about these issues and to urge people to get involved through direct action” (we are not the subject’s PR manager)
  • long list of the subject’s exhibitions
• Sources: Wayyyy too many primary sources. This amount of primary sources contributes to the above NPOV issues.
• Plagiarism/copyright: Earwig is picking up a 50% match from the subject’s book publisher (non-quoted material). And over a 30% match from ref 1. That’s not acceptable. This alone is grounds for a quick fail.

Unfortunately I will need to quick fail this article per WP:QF criteria 1 and 2. Good luck on improving the article in the future! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, if you plan on QF this, then please read WP:GANI/F. 48JCL 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAN/I#Fail i mean 48JCL 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL, normally yes, but as part of the July Backlog drive, I’m letting a more experienced reviewer concur with my evaluation first before I close it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I went and looked at the article before checking this review and had the same first bad taste in my mouth at "internationally recognized". This is a quickfail, and it's not even close.

This is nominator Gumballhead1of2's first visit to GAN, so I'd like to further dissect some of the issues that leave this page very far from meeting multiple Good Article criteria:

• The sourcing is overwhelmingly primary. There is an image cited as a source for some reason, alongside multiple links to IMDb. There are some secondary sources that look promising, including a 1997 feature in the Los Angeles Times, a 2010 book review in The Independent, and coverage of her exhibitions in different cities. I encourage the nominator to trade up to reliable sources in news media, books, and scholarly literature (which I suspect might exist). While they do not have 10+ edits in the last month, if they were to do so, they would qualify for Wikipedia Library access, which would help in procuring the needed higher-quality sourcing.
• The impact of promotional editing is still reflected in the prose. It's puffier than a puff pastry, and much of its language is not encyclopedic. If you've come from a PR background, as I suspect, this is going to be an adjustment for you. Trading up in sourcing will also help you avoid the copyvio issue.
• Image licensing. A VRT ticket, like the one Gluckstein provided for her image, needs to be supplied for the book cover. I do not know if Gluckstein, and not her publisher, would have authority to create that ticket.

Pinging Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d to have this nomination closed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 10:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a 100% chance I will use “puffier than a puff pastry” in the future to describe similar articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2024 (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.