Talk:Lum You

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lum You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for a second opinion regarding the size/broadness of coverage as i've never reviewed an article anywhere near this small and don't wish to make an error. Feel free to address my other concerns in the meantime. Freikorp (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

After receiving advice from a mentor, I have now completed my initial review. Awaiting second wave of responses. Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Clear and concise. Assuming good faith for copyright violation in offline sources.

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

   The lead is too brief, even for an article this short. How about some information on the fact he was an immigrant, and/or that police has previously told him to take matters into his own hands?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   All good.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Your only online source is a dead link. Obviously this needs fixing.

   It wouldn't hurt to wikilnk the publishers in your references that have articles/redirects; University of Washington Press and Clarkson Potter.

   iUniverse is a self published source. Is there any particular reason why you think this source should be acceptable? Is Archie Satterfield an expert in the relevant field that has been published by third parties?

   Other offline sources accepted in good faith.

   C. No original research:

   All good.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Are you confident you have utilised all sources readily available to write this article? The mentor I contacted regarding this review suggested there might be more information on Lum in this book: [1]. This book i've found [2] gives him a brief mention, but more importantly, it cites an article that appeared in the Morning Oregonian on 31 January 1902. Here's some information on how to get a hold of a copy of that paper: [3]. Are you also sure a reliable online source that could be used for this article cannot be found? Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Excellent use of the few available sources, I am confident that all readily available sources have been utilised to write this article.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious bias.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Obvious from article history.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are in public domain.

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

   Images are clearly relevant.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Response from nominator

Thanks for the initial review. Here are my responses to the issues you've raised:

• The Chinook Observer link does indeed appear to be dead. I can't find the article archived online anywhere (including the Wayback Machine) so I've simply replaced the url parameter with deadurl. Of course, the article remains available in print archives.
  • Thanks for changing the reference to cite the newspaper but still give the deadurl link. All good now. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I've added links to the publishers and expanded the lead per your suggestion.
  • The lead states his jailers helped him escape as if this is an accepted fact, yet the main article uses the word "supposedly". Which is correct.? Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding the book by Archie Satterfield, I'm aware that this particular edition of it is self-published. However, Satterfield was a famous author and journalist in his own right. He had a solid reputation for his history and travel books on the Pacific Northwest, which were published through traditional publishers. The Satterfield book I cite was originally published by Rand McNally in 1980 but went out of print; for whatever reason Satterfield chose to rerelease it through a print-on-demand publisher in 2003. If it's really necessary I can track down the 1980 edition to check that it contains all the information I cite from the 2003 edition. However, my reading of WP:SELFPUBLISH suggests this shouldn't be necessary: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining that. Considering the fact it was previously published by a reputable source I think sticking to the iUniverse edition will be sufficient as well. Thanks for linking Archie Satterfield. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it will be in your best interest to cite the Rand McNally version, as this would prevent the source from being removed in the future. Freikorp (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I am in the process of locating a print edition of this book and if it contains the same information I'll update the reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments, Freikorp. Here are my responses:

• Thanks for locating the reference to the Morning Oregonian. This turned out to be a brief news bulletin of just two sentences, though it did clear up an ambiguity regarding which of the two state governors in office during You's proceedings responded to the request for clemency. I've amended the article accordingly, with reference to this bulletin.
• Regarding the complicity of You's captors in his escape, this is something which is related by at least two reliable sources (Archie Satterfield and Sydney Stevens). Stevens uses somewhat more cautious language, though, noting that the details of the escape have never been satisfactorily documented. I've updated the lead to use the same language as the main article.
• Apart from the Morning Oregonian bulletin, I'm not aware of any reliable sources which are fully available online. The 2011 Chinook Observer article was available online (via subscription) at the time I wrote the article, but it seems it has since been taken down. I am in possession of an offline copy.
• I'm confident I used all reliable sources readily available to me at the time the article was written. Unfortunately I don't have access to Outlaw Tales of Washington, even via interlibrary loan, and don't have any basis on which to form an opinion of its reliability. However, Satterfield, Espy, and Stevens are unimpeachably reliable; each of them has a deservedly solid reputation as a local historian. Espy's book was a national bestseller, and Stevens (Espy's niece) is an exceptionally thorough researcher, with academic press credits to her name. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well done. I'm passing it now. Freikorp (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)