Talk:Fred Rogers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I so glad this article is up for GAN! This is exactly in my wheelhouse, and Mr. Rogers is so admirable and deserving of a high-quality WP article. More than happy to review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has taken me so long to start. I will start late today (10/29 UTC). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any update?--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Guys, I'm inclined to quickfail this article, sorry to say. It doesn't fulfill enough of the GA criteria. Instead of quickfailing it, though, I'll take the time to explain my reasoning, since this is an important article and should be improved as much as possible.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is adequate enough for a GA, except in the following ways:

Inconsistency in spelling "Rogers'" vs. Rogers's". Please pick one way and stick with it throughout the article, unless you directly quote a source that uses a particular spelling. (I suggest "Rogers'" because that's how "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" spells it.)
One-sentence or overly-short paragraphs. Well-written WP articles tend to have longer paragraphs.
Flow and transitions. Again, the way this article currently flows is adequate for GA, but it reads like a bunch of information was added, much like a list. Transitions are very weak; the short paragraphs add to the weakness.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
A WP article lead is supposed to summarize its content; this one does not. For example, it contains information not in the "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" segment. It also should summarize the important parts of each section.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The same issue stated above on this talk page, in the "Possible issue" section. For example, the fourth paragraph in the "Death and memorials" seems like it was cut-and-pasted directly from the source. That makes me suspect that there are similar issues in other places in this article.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I suggest that you read and use the WP policy WP:SS for the section about "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood." It should be a summary of the main article about the show. Currently, I think there's too much detail in this article about it, and it focuses on just a few aspects of it, like its structure. This section is also a good example of weak transitions and the grouping of unconnected information and trivia.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I think that this article can tend to be over-flattering of its subject. It uses peacock terms at times reads like a fluff piece. For example, in the "Early life" section: "James was a very successful businessman".
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
I'm giving this criteria a "yes", but as of this review, editors were still working on some major improvements of this article.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I potentially have issue with one image: the John Laidacker Oakland mural. While I admit that images have never been my expertise as a WP editor, I'm not sure that it's fair use.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article, in its current condition, isn't ready to be passed to GA-status. It still needs a lot of work, which needs to be done before the new movie about Mr. Rogers is released, because I'd bet that millions of people will come here to learn about him. I'm willing to lend a hand however I can. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, going to take another stab at this. I changed some photos around, and just need to change the prose.The lorax (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I've spent some time working on this article; at first, I thought that improving the prose would be enough, but after working on only a little over a paragraph, I've come to the conclusion that this article needs much more than that. The biggest weakness with this article is how it utilizes sources. For example, many of the sources simply didn't support the statements they were supposed to support. You can't make the sources say what you want them to say, which seems to be what's happened; it seems that editors made statements and then slapped sources on them. That's unacceptable, even for a GA. In addition, there's lots of information from the sources that should be included in the article; for example, there should be more information about Rogers' family, especially his grandfather's influence on him. Rogers came from a wealthy, prominent family, and that's missing from the article. Finally, the prose is problematic, as discussed above in this review.

Here's what I propose: I will take this article on, and bring it up to at least GA quality, but working with what's already here. This article should be a FA, but that will require much more research. Since that would make me a major contributor, I should step down as a reviewer and resubmit it to GAC when it's ready. Then we can talk about improving it further. You'll notice that my edit summaries are more descriptive, something I'd like to continue so that the other editors involved can see what I do and why. In the meantime, I'd like to go ahead and fail this article as a GA, something I always hate doing but which is necessary in this case.

I'll wait for response from this article's current editors, and then move forward. This article, as I state above, needs to be at least a GA before the big movie comes out in Oct. 2019. That's plenty of time, and I'd like to commit to helping make that happen. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair, which sources don't specifically match the text? I can help you as well. Please let me know!The lorax (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go do that now, and get the article pulled out of the queue. My edit summaries point out the problems with the sources, and I added the need citation template to unsupported claims. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]