Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan Scott (television personality)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As my contribution to undoing this whole mess, and because I'm behind on my QPQs lately, I will take this one.

I will be printing it out, doing my usual light copy edit, and coming back in a few days/week or so with my thoughts. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's done ...

I am sorry that this had to be done twice, but I hope the quick turnaround for my review has made up for that.

I am pleased to say that the copyedit wasn't as challenging as it has been on more other GANs than I would like to admit. It reads as written by the same person throughout, and that voice can spell and generally use the language correctly. My only complaint was the excessive verbiage in some areas, phrasings that betray spending too much time with sources, language that is more journalistic than encyclopedic. I have trimmed and tightened most of that out of the article; it says a lot, however, about the writers' discipline that the net result of the copy edit was less than 1K of shortening, which suggests that there wasn't really a lot of fat.

The only issue specifically I will call the writers out on is a personal one of mine: the regular use of exact dates. I understand that you may feel the need to show that you did your research ... but that's why we have footnotes and WP:CITE. In so many cases in articles, including just about every one in this one, the exact date something happened is of negligible importance even a few years later.

Due attention was paid to making sure everything that should have been cited (which is to say everything) was cited. A reviewer really appreciates this ... it happens on too few GANs. I had to clean up some formatting issues with the footnotes, and add some access dates for sources, and some times for moments in videos (about which more later). But on the whole a superlative effort—this came to GAN looking like someone cared. I can't always say that.

EpicGhosty's review, while too cursory to count, wasn't off on the substance. After the copy edit, most of the minimal obstacles that separate this from a truly earned green-circle-and-cross have been eliminated. But not all ...

  • "Early career" tells us that Scott transferred to "the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and the Home Builders Institute of Alberta". I can't find anything online about the latter institution. Is it part of SAIT? It would seem so from the wording. Some clarity would be helpful.
  • I just now looked it up, and it's actually called the Professional Home Builders Institute. The title in the article comes from a first-person source, which is fallible (or the name changed). I will change it to the correct name.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One writing issue I didn't fix everywhere was the tendency to describe an action as having begun without saying whether it was completed. It seems from "early career" that while Jonathan (his first name should be used there to distinguish him from his twin brother) got his real estate license, Drew is described as having merely taken the course. I would assume Drew got it? (Or actually, since this article is about Jonathan and Drew has his own article, maybe we should just leave Drew out of it entirely).
  • The source did confirm they both got licenses, which is the important thing. I amended it to simply say they both had licenses, Drew first, then Jonathan.Drew did get his license as well, but I only know that from consuming millions of hours of their content. I didn't actually have a concrete source, and the cited source only explicitly said he took the course. I agree with you that it should be removed. As an aside, the tendency to tell half stories can almost always be attributed to have a source for part of the story and not the rest. I will read through the article and try to eliminate that wherever I see it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Very Brady Renovation was, the article tells us, supposed to premiere in September 2019. Well ... it's November 2020. What's going on with that? I could have looked it up myself, but it's itself marked as needing another look after a certain date, which has long since passed. That's really something that should have, could have been done since last fall, or during the long pendency of this nomination. But it wasn't, and I consider it out of the scope of a copy edit done by a GA reviewer, so it will have to be done now.
  • Likewise, what of Builder Brothers: Better Together? It's been a year and that, too, is marked as needing an update.
  • In "personal life", who is Jacinta Kuznetsov? Her name is mentioned as if it's something we need to know, and since she and Jonathan were involved and lived together for two years but without any context, it is, but other than it being noted that she's into animal rights later on we know nothing of what she did at the time she and Scott started dating. Is she notable? If so, we should have an article about her. If not, an appositive phrase after her name briefly stating whatever it was she was doing at the time is in order.
  • In awards, we get an explanation of what the Leo award is, but not the Rose d'Or. I realize it's linked, but when reading the article on paper the absence of an explanation of what the latter is really, ahem, jumps off the page.
  • In the filmography section, some entries are cited and some are not. They should all be cited. Or there could be one cite given at the beginning as seems to be done on other articles where the subject's filmography is too short to necessitate a separate list.
  • This brings in the issue of a couple of places where the IMDb is used as a source. There is an {{Unreliable source?}} tag on one but it would apply to both. The nominator(s) need(s) to look at WP:CITEIMDB and consider whether the material the IMDb is cited to support really can be supported by the IMDb and, if not, whether an alternative, more reliable source can be found. If not, it should just be dropped from the article.

    However, there would be nothing wrong with putting it in external links, where frankly it should be in any event (just took care of that)

  • I am unclear what the purpose of the podcast section is. Are they in the article because they might be used as sources in the future? If so, someone should listen to them, note any interesting and relevant facts that come out of them and at what time in the podcast they are stated, and then incorporate them into the article, citing the podcasts as sources. If this is not the intention, or if they have already been listened to and there's nothing in them we'd want to know, then they should probably be removed from the article, as as it is it looks perilously close to an effort to promote the podcasts in question. We do not seem to have an article about either podcast and I am not sure that they are inherently notable without researching that.
  • Likewise the discography and publications need some sort of citation.
  • I am also not sure what the deal is with the see-also section. There is none of the required explanation for why these four people are there. They seem, from reading the articles, to be other home-improvement show TV hosts—and a very incomplete listing of such hosts at that. It would probably be better, if that sort of linkage is desired, to create a list of those hosts and link to that. If we don't want to do that in the immediate future, we can at least take that section out or find some other entries that make more sense and explain why they're there (Or link to something like List of people from Vancouver ... that sort of thing).

OK ... that's it for now, and hopefully for this review, for my punch list. I'm putting it ...

 On hold

The nominators have the usual week; if you're making progress but you need more time, we can probably extend that. Good luck and happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: Just so you know, in case you're not watching this page. Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a bit. Thanks! I am going to go through the notes sometime today.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Esprit15d: I appreciate the work you have done ... it's been a week, though, and I'd just like to know if you'll be able to address the last five items on the list. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case:I can, but I need a couple more days until this holiday break is over.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Esprit15d: Not a problem ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: Lookin' good so far ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: What's our timeframe going forward on this? You're doing a good job; I hope you can finish it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I am going to work on it more this afternoon. I work on this on my work machine, which has been getting serviced for a persistent problem. I'm supposed to mail it to get a serviced this weekend, but my plan to grind on this article this afternoon/night before i send it off.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Esprit15d: I see more progress. Hopefully before Christmas we can finish this up. Hope your computer gets better soon. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: Status? Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work remotely from home and had to send my computer away for repairs and it's been two weeks and I still haven't gotten it back due to shipping delays. I want to get back to this article as soon as I get my computer back. -Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Esprit15d: Hey, I have an idea ... maybe you could give me the rest of the edits that need to be done (not many, it looks like), I can do them for you and then promote the article? Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it has been two weeks since that last post. The nominator continues to have computer problems and has not been able to edit so far this year, as far as I know. I will give it till the end of this month. If those changes aren't made by then, I will fail the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January is over; per the above this is a ✗ Fail

I am sorry it has had to come to this, but at a certain point we have to end things; we cannot let these reviews go on forever. The nominator had been very cooperative, but as he said technical problems were getting in the way. If his computer eventually gets repaired and he can get back to work and there has not been any substantial editing to this article, and he makes the remaining changes above, it can be renominated and I am hopeful that another reviewer will pass it.

Good luck and happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Scott_(television_personality)/GA1&oldid=1004137094"