Talk:Historic Presbyterian Community Center (Madison, Nebraska)

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Historic Presbyterian Community Center (Madison, Nebraska)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am starting a GA Review for this article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   There are issues with many refs. Please check out/correct: Ref 23, 22, etc. Please refer to referencing problems. These issues have been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes, but [see next section]

   Much improved. I agree that the Akron plan needs to be explained and that it is one of the reasons the former church is on the National Register.Shearonink (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There is too much detail about the "Akron Plan". Out of the total 2531 words/readable prose size, 951 are contained in this section, I think that's around 40% of the total article... This content has been adjusted and is no longer an issue. Shearonink (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The Akron plan section is problematic and, therefore, so are the associated images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

First of all, thanks for agreeing to do the GAR. I've done a few myself, and I know that it can involve a considerable committment of time and effort. Your willingness to do this for the good of the encyclopedia is appreciated.

Second, I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to respond, and I'm afraid that I won't get much done for the next few days. The end of the year is a busy time for me, and a press of obligations has forced me to put Wikipedia on the back burner. I'll try to do at least a little work on this between now and New Year's; after that, things should ease up considerably, and I should be able to put in some serious effort. I hope that the delay won't be troublesome for you. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. There are no deadlines in Wikipedia. It's more important to get it done right, than simply to get it done. Shearonink (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, and I'll try not to put too much strain on it.

I think I've fixed the referencing problems for citations 22 and 24. I've replaced the dead link in 22 with a link to an archived version at Wayback Machine; but, following the example toward the end of WP:WAYBACK, have retained the old URL in "Archived from the original..." form. Thus it still shows up as a dead link when I run the referencing problems tool. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those ref issues. The major things standing in the way of this article getting possible GA status is the excessive amount of detail about the Akron Plan. I just ran the Duplication Tool and came up with a worrying # of duplications between this article and the Akron Plan article: https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistoric_Presbyterian_Community_Center_%28Madison%2C_Nebraska%29&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAkron_Plan&minwords=2&minchars=13. I do not know which article was written first but it does appear that they share many characteristics in common which can indicate a measure of in-wiki copying which then engenders attribution issues. The Akron Plan section has to be edited into a more-manageable size, both because this article is not about the Akron Plan and because of the possible attribution issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My year's-end tangle is largely cleared up, and I can now devote some serious time to this article. Thanks once again for your patience with me.

Re-reading the article, I think you're right about the excessive detail on the Akron plan. Sunday school was not part of my background, and I researched it hard in order to make sure that I knew the topic reasonably well before I started writing about it. That was good, but I then put too much of that research into the article.

I'm afraid that I have to differ with you regarding the Duplication Tool results as an indicator of possible interwiki copying. Apart from Wikipedia boilerplate, the longest duplicated phrase is one of six words, and it's the partial title of two cited works: "National Register of Historic Places nomination". The rest of the duplicates are all short phrases that would occur naturally in the course of writing about the subject: "according to the Akron plan", "the First Methodist Episcopal Church", "The Akron Plan Sunday School" (another title), "Sunday school rooms in the", etc.

I think that the appropriate next step is for me to merge the Akron-plan material from this article into the Akron-plan article, then to write a significantly shorter description for this article. This seems to be the approach indicated in WP:SUMMARY: "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article." During the first step, I'll be working on Akron plan rather than on this article. Hopefully, that will go quickly; if there're delays, I'll come back here in a few days and give a progress report, so that you'll know I'm still at work on it. — Ammodramus (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I did say "it can indicate a measure of in-wiki copying". Wasn't sure myself which is why I wanted to mention the matter here on the Review page. I think your plan re working on the "Akron Plan" article first and then coming back to this one makes perfect sense. See you soon, Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick progress report: My contribution history has been somewhat sparse the past few days, since I've been researching rather than writing. For the article on the Madison building, it sufficed to discuss the history of the Akron Plan up to the time of the building's construction. For my rewrite of the Akron Plan article, I need more on its decline. Complicating the task, Google Books has apparently made changes, and I'm still trying to figure out how to download PDFs of public-domain books. But I think I'm almost there: I need to add a paragraph or two more at the end of the article, then to write a lead section. I'm doing all this in userspace; once I get that finished up and move it into mainspace, I'll be able to summarize it in the Madison article.

And yet again, thanks for your patience. I hope to get some serious work done this weekend and tie up the loose ends very shortly thereafter. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Finished rewriting Akron Plan and released the rewrite into userspace. I'm now working on a more concise description for this article. I'll do so in userspace, to avoid having to write edit summaries for lots of edits in mainspace. If you'd like to look over my shoulder, I'll be working on it at User:Ammodramus/Draft2. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Think this is now ready to go. I've written a much more concise version of the "Akron Plan" section, and given it a couple of proofreadings. — Ammodramus (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Much-improved, I can see you've done a massive amount of copy-editing on the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (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.