Talk:March for Our Lives Portland/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 13:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another I'll pull for review this afternoon. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to say that all of the listed organisers were teenagers at the time, rather than age each one individually?
- May I ask why? Is this for privacy purposes? I certainly want to follow Wikipedia's standards re: privacy of people (especially minors), but I also think they elected to share their names with press as organizers of a major public event. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The names are fine, as public press record, but the ages strike me as too much detail about minors. It's not oversightable or anything like that, of course, but IMO, it is trivia when a more general statement would work and flow better. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, I've removed their ages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Unpresidented Brass Band also marched." The who now? If they don't have an article, they might not be notable enough to mention.
- Removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all fine.
Do we have an event logo that could be used? I think [1] would be PD-ineligible?
- I'm not sure. Is this URL appropriate for uploading the logo here at English Wikipedia under fair use, just in case? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That works fine as an image source for a logo, and I'd suggest it's just as PD-ineligible as the main March for Our Lives logo is, which is hosted on Commons. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Courcelles: I am not comfortable uploading this image to Commons. I don't mean to pass along the work to someone else, but are you willing to upload the image? If not, I'd be willing to upload under fair use here at ENWP. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I believe only one image can be added to the infobox, so would the logo replace the current image? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, good point. And I'm way beyond the actual GA criteria anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing looks good.

Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a lot of information which is either trivial (not WP:TRIVIA) or redundant to the parent article. This article was twice nominated for deletion. My nomination was the first but it was improperly done as my intent was to propose it be merged into the parent article. The second nomination is here [[2]]. I would note the number of editors (and the closer), especially ones not involved with the article, who felt the article violated WP:NOTNEWS, and would really be better as a part of the parent March for Our Lives article. The March for Our Lives Albany article was merged away for basically this same reason. Springee (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Springee, two previous deletion discussions and this clear preference not to merge the article show other editors disagree with you. I don't feel a need to say more. Thanks for the review, Courcelles. I will address your concerns as soon as I can. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would not say that we have a clear consensus not to delete. The AfD was clear not to delete. The first one was closed early as malformed. The local consensus was to keep but we haven't actually posed an open RfC. It also doesn't address the large amount of trivial or redundant content in the article. Perhaps the best way to handle this is an open RfC since AfM is not likely to get much traction beyond those who have edited the article. Springee (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting discussion, however, notability isn't part of the GA criteria as written. It seems odd, but, indeed, it isn't something I'm supposed to worry about. Sources I have checked, and the sources support the content, and there's enough of them to support all the content, that's as far as GA worries itself about sourcing, not whether they add up to notability for a stand alone article. Personally, I think they do, but that's irrelevant to whether this review passes or fails. Accordingly, it passes as the GA criteria are satisfied. 16:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      - Interesting. Kind of odd that but that's also good to know if people say "it's a GA" as a reason not to merge the content or remove a lot of the trivial information. Springee (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.