Talk:Getty Villa/GA5

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Any WP:GAN article that reaches /GA5 is "controversial". I will be reviewing this nomination in depth, so it will not be a quick review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for undertaking this review. To be honest, although I am not trying to "GA trophy hunt", this article is the missing piece that would allow me to nominate the Getty Trust as a "Good Topic". GA1 was a thoughtful review by a respected editor. I worked on the areas suggested by that review resulting in GA2 which was conduced by Amadscientist. That review broke down because Amadscientist exceeded the scope of the GA criteria and wanted the image pages to have complete information including the date and name of the photographer. I supplied all of the information that I could (which was enought to meet GA Criteria 6a), but Amadceintist took offense when I said that no other information was available and shut down the review with a "fail." I addressed as many of Amadscientist's other concerns as was humanly possible and renominated it. User:Daniel Christensen then passed the article finding that it met the GA Criteria as GA3 on March 30. On June 13, Amadscientist returned and conducted an individual reassessment rather than a community reassessment without giving notice to either Daniel Christensen or me. As soon as I found the GA4 page I added my response, but last night the reassessment was closed as "unlisted." I would encourage you to read my detailed response on that page. You can email me if you need more details. So we are at GA5, and I am willing to cooperate with you fully. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerical note: Racepacket (talk · contribs) has just lost an arbitration case and has been banned for one year. I am sure he would still be willing to communicate via email regarding this issue, but further responses from him in this forum—and further article edits from him—should not be expected. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I will continue to review this nomination and elsewhere I've offered to review another two of Racepacket's nominations. I will wait until "corrective actions", if any, are needed; and see what responses occur. Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

At this stage I'm going to work my way down the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, and just pick up any "problems". I'm basically I just looking at text and citations, images will be covered last. So if I don't comment on a particular section here, that is likely to indicate that I've not seen any problems. Pyrotec (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• This section looks OK.

• Facility and programs -

• Most of this section comes from the Getty museums' own material, but it is verifiable through the given citations. A possibly minor point, opening hours and parking is quoted as being $15.00 during the day/ free during the evening; and a Getty Trust citation dated 2010 is used as verification. I would, however, suggest the addition of the caviate, "As of 2010, ....", we are now half way through 2011. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Campus -

• Just about acceptable. Much of this is a summary of what is given in the official guide. Its a rather "dull read" and this section could be improved without too much effort, but is not too poor to warrent a "fail".

• Collection -

• First paragraph is OK.
• The section paragraph, with a subsection title GettyGuide, is almost WP:SPAM. I've now removed much of what can be regared as "WP:SPAM, but the information can still be viewed (if necessary) by going to the source.

• WP:Lead -

• Rather short, but just about acceptable.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Generally OK but some sections would be improved without too much effort and this would enhance the readability of the overall article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not a particularly "strong" GA, but its compliant and therefore I'm awarding it GA-status.

I'm awarding this article GA-status. This has been a somewhat controversal candidate in so far as this is the 5th WP:GAN. Its not a particularly "strong GA", but its "just sufficient"; so I'm keeping at GA. Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)