Jump to content

Talk:March for Science Portland/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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 toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 03:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read this one over and review it for good article based on the WP:WIAGA good article criteria. Looks like it could do with some changes based on good article reviewer recommendations, will probably post up a list of those soon. Sagecandor (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 27, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. I see the article had a copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors but the writing still has a few issues:
  2. Example: Speakers included Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, and Elizabeth Steiner Hayward. -- could use a colon after "included".
    I don't think the colon is required, but I went ahead and added. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Several organizations promoted the protest, including the Audubon Society of Portland, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Health & Science University, The Nature Conservancy, and Xerces Society. -- could use a colon after "included".
    Ditto above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reporters noted organizers' attempt to create a political yet nonpartisan atmosphere, and described the event as family-friendly. -- should be "organizers' attempts", plural.
    Done! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reporters noted organizers' attempt to create a political yet nonpartisan atmosphere, and described the event as family-friendly. -- reader doesn't get a good sense from this sentence. Break it apart in two, two separate ideas. Expand both as about two sentences each, for each separate idea.
    Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Motivation -- blockquote is too big. Remove it. Use much smaller quote, or paraphrase a small portion as paragraph text.
    Better? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Commentary and documentation -- blockquote is too big. Remove it. Use much smaller quote, or paraphrase a small portion as paragraph text.
    Better? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Background to section Organizers -- big whitespace break is jarring for the reader. Fix it.
    I don't see any white space. Can you clarify? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Organizers -- one sentence long paragraph at the end is odd suddenly. Expand it or merge it up.
    Merged. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Preparation and planning -- one sentence long paragraph at the end is odd suddenly. Expand it or merge it up.
    Merged. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See also -- section doesn't really add much for the reader. Remove it. Work some links into the main article text if you want, or not.
    I'd like to push back here. I think these links help provide additional context to readers. I'll also note the presence of some of the same links at March for Science. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable?: This is within a controversial topic, articles on any and all subjects related to the recent increasing phenomenon of Post-truth politics. Make sure all sentences cited with in-line citations in the lede intro section.
3. Broad in coverage?: Intro should be expanded with more info from section Commentary and documentation.
4. Neutral point of view?: Lede section needs more info expanding on sentence, Reporters noted organizers' attempt to create a political yet nonpartisan atmosphere, and described the event as family-friendly..
Expanded to say, "Reporters noted organizers' attempts to create a political yet nonpartisan atmosphere, and participants' public criticism of Trump. The event featured activities for children and was described as having a family-friendly atmosphere." ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable? Article page history has been stable for at least over one month. Talk page has nothing to speak of and ongoing conflicts.
6. Images?: Between {{Protests against Trump sidebar}} and {{Infobox event}}, and the nine 9 images, and the video links, it seems a bit too much. Can {{Protests against Trump sidebar}} instead be converted to a footer template so it doesn't break up text on all the articles it is on?
So, I appreciate, and agree with your observation, but this is not a discussion to be had here. I've already raised this concern on the various template talk pages and at WikiProject Donald Trump. I do think this will sort itself out over time, but for now, the inclusion of these templates is appropriate. I did remove an image showing anti-Trump signage, so I hope the amount of media no longer seems excessive. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good, almost there, needs a little bit of work first.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Thanks for the review! I've completed a round of replies and article edits, if you'd like to revisit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Just making sure this hasn't fallen off your radar. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree about see also section. Links are not really that helpful. Can just move portal bar to bottom and get rid of rest of section. Lede section could be expanded a little bit more. {{Protests against Trump sidebar}} needs to be converted to a footer template or removed. It's pushing aside the whole rest of the page. Big white space between "Background" and "Organizers" headers because of that template. The eight side by side images are too much. Goes towards violating NPOV. Makes article seem overly promotional. Need to trim down amount of such images used. And or get rid of template. And or change {{Protests against Trump sidebar}} to footer template. Sagecandor (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Alright, I disagree about the See also section, but I went ahead and removed the links and moved the portal bar to the bottom of the article. Again, this is not the place to discuss converting {{Protests against Trump sidebar}} to a footer template. But, because the article appears in this template, the template should be displayed immediately below the infobox by definition. Like I said, I've tried to bring this up before (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#Template:Donald_Trump_series and Template_talk:Trump_presidency#Duplicate_template.3F), and eventually this will sort itself out. In the meantime, this should not impact the article's promotion to Good status. Since when do images from an event violate NPOV? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any links where anyone ever tried to WP:BOLDly just switch the template to a footer template. That would immediately solve the problem. And yes, the images make the page violate WP:NPOV. The images make the page look like a dual-pane-billboard-advertising for the event. Some images are nice. This many looks promotional. Especially in combination with the vertical template, which you should just take some initiative, now, and turn into a footer navbox template and move to the bottom. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Alright, well I'm not willing to tackle the Trump sidebar conversion right now, which should not be held against this article's promotion. The template(s) involve many articles, and more people should be involved in the discussion about how they are displayed. I removed an image of the stage, but I don't see how any other the others are problematic. They simply show speakers at the event and the crowd size. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can do about the former. The latter issue, article still looks lopsided when comparing number of images to size of overall article. Maybe if there was more text or if article was expanded more in relation to number of images used. Can you move some to a Gallery section at the bottom of the body text of the article, instead? Sagecandor (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the article is adequately illustrated, but I am curious, do you still see white space between Background and Organizers sections? I never had this problem. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whitespace now gone. Can you please move some images to a Gallery section? Sagecandor (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't create a gallery (yuck!), but if you'll decide which images must be removed to pass GAN, I'll comply even though I disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep the ones about notable people and stuff with existing wiki articles about those things. I'd recommend remove these:
  1. File:March For Science PDX (34250021585).jpg
  2. File:March for Science, PDX, 2017 - 28.jpg
  3. File:March For Science PDX (34209711036).jpg
They don't really add anything to the article, and all they do is clog up the page and distract the reader from the informative text itself. We should be for our WP:Readers first. Sagecandor (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? We should absolutely be showing the crowd size, as this is what makes the event notable. If anything, the images of the politicians should be removed. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to remove the images that actually depict the event and its crowd size. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If neither of us is willing to give in here re: imagery, then we're going to need a third opinion. But your preference to remove images of the event and keep those depicting politicians is actually a bit concerning to me. Showing the crowd is not problematic in terms of NPOV, and does more to illustrate the article than images of people speaking on a stage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can also get rid of the fair use image in the infobox, as you have so many free-use images, and move one image emblematic of the crowd size directly into the infobox itself. And sure, feel free to remove the politicians images and keep the crowd size images, if you wish. But I'm saying for our WP:Readers first, they don't really add much to the article at all. Sagecandor (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the images of the politicians. I will not get rid of the fair use logo image. You should know better than to request its removal. I hope you'll pass this article now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:March for Science, PDX, 2017 - 29.jpg can also go, as it doesn't have anything to do with "crowd size" or anything like that. Seems a POV choice also. And yes, there is no need for the fair use image in the infobox, when there are free-use images available that could be used in the infobox. Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm sorry, but you're stripping this article of good things. The fair use image is a logo, not just a fair use image of the event which can be replaced by free alternatives. If you're not willing to pass this article based on its merits, then I am going to request a third opinion. I don't mean to be resistant here, but your requests are not appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to fix File:March for Science Portland logo.jpg, which is missing vital information on Author or copyright owner. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, you are being resistant. And your choice of verbiage, is not the most professional, and not helpful towards furthering positive constructive efforts here. The article is already much improved thanks to the changes you've made during this review. The review itself would have gone much more smoothly without the snarkiness. Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... ok... Are you passing the article now? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few more points to raise here. But -- That's it? Just "Okay" ? I'm a bit disheartened by the tone choice and the badgering of the nominator. I'd like to raise some more recommendations. I'm glad the nominator has responded to most of my other recommendations, above. I'm disheartened it took so long to respond to them. And yes, I certainly WOULD in the end like to pass the article. Not quite yet, but almost. But the badgering and the tone is just tiresome and disheartening. Sagecandor (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I'm disheartened it took so long to respond to them." I don't understand. I addressed your concerns immediately and had to ping you multiple times to return to this review. I do apologize if my tone has been inappropriate with the last few comments. I am just getting frustrated by your requests, some of which are entirely inappropriate, such as removing the logo from the infobox. I do appreciate you for your time and willingness to review and improve this article. If there are specific concerns you have with this article, please let me know, but I have no problem saying when I disagree, which should not be taken personally. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please also don't take review recommendations personally as well. And I do hope the tone improves in the future, especially from the recent issues. Sagecandor (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At image page File:March for Science Portland logo.jpg, field Not replaceable with free media because is insufficient. Copyright holders are still alive. And very much able to be contacted. Has any attempt been made to ask them to license for free-use license to upload to Wikimedia Commons ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I am not willing to do so just to pass GAN when this is not required. There is nothing wrong with using a logo under fair use. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Not willing to do so" ? Why not? Why not willing to send one simple email request to help every single other language wiki about the topic for all time in all languages? Why is that effort not a good thing? Sagecandor (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wiling to do so because it's not necessary, to pass GAN or otherwise. If you'd like to send an email, you are more than welcome. I spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia and other Wikimedia project, but emailing event organizers is not how I prefer to spend my time supporting the movement. I hope you understand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the field on the image page File:March for Science Portland logo.jpg Not replaceable with free media because needs more info. Why can it not be replaced with a free-use image? Why can a free-use image not be obtained? Why was no attempt made to obtain free-use image? A simple "n.a." does not satisfy this, or really, tell us anything, at all, about the image. Sagecandor (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to put here. I've uploaded many logos the same way without this issue being raised before. If you have specific wording in mind, I'll comply. This is no different than using an image of a book cover (which you're familiar with) and other fair use images. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something other than "n.a." would be helpful. Also same for the other "n.a." in the other field on the image page. Those add nothing. Sagecandor (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll suggest specific language, I'll add, but I don't know what you want to see there. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you personally feel the image of the logo is, Not replaceable with free media, as you've already asserted on this review page, multiple times, above, to me ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sagecandor, if there is specific language required to pass GAN, then please let me know. I used the Upload Wizard to enter the required parameters. I've done this hundreds of times without problem, so I don't know what's needed here specifically. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the language you yourself already used, above: The fair use image is a logo, not just a fair use image of the event which can be replaced by free alternatives. Sagecandor (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Added. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At File:March for Science Portland logo.jpg, please replace "n.a." in field, Respect for commercial opportunities, with an explanation for why the image isn't likely to harm the commercial value of the image itself by the copyright holder. Sagecandor (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what this means, so if you can suggest specific language or provide an example of a similar explanation at another logo file, I can add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please read the linked item in the link directly below the field Respect for commercial opportunities, at the image page for File:March for Science Portland logo.jpg ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Links here. So what language would you like to see displayed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the image page, for File:March for Science Portland logo.jpg, in the image field Respect for commercial opportunities, please add from Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#2, Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. Sagecandor (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Added. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues

[edit]

Please reply below all:

  1. Please remove use of word, "Despite..." This is violation of WP:NPOV. Could be changed to simply, "Amid", or "During".
  2. First sentence makes use of eight (8) commas. This is way too much. Please cut this down. Please cut sentence to smaller.
  3. Portland Science Advocates organized the march in support of science and to protest President Donald Trump's plan to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institutes of Health, among other policies. -- please remove "among other policies", or be more specific.
  4. Funding for the event, which cost around $30,000, was crowdsourced. - please change "around" to "approximately".
  5. Several organizations promoted the protest, including the Audubon Society of Portland, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Health & Science University, The Nature Conservancy, and Xerces Society. -- please change to Organizations that promoted the protest included: the Audubon Society of Portland, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Health & Science University, The Nature Conservancy, and Xerces Society.
  6. The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry hosted a series of presentations and panel discussions by Oregon scientists at the museum, following the march. -- please change to Following the march, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry hosted a series of presentations and panel discussions by local scientists.
  7. Portland's March for Science was organized by the group called Portland Science Advocates,[3][4] which was composed of people with backgrounds in various disciplines, including Jackie Wirz, an assistant dean at Oregon Health & Science University, and a store clerk with a passion for science and writing.[5] -- please split into two sentences.
  8. The organizers met through the event's Facebook page, which was launched in February 2017, and sought advice from the organizers of the Women's March on Portland (January 2017).[6] -- please re-order this chronologically. January 2017 first, then February 2017, then what happened next.
  9. Organizers wanted to support science and protest Donald Trump's plan to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institutes of Health.[8] -- please add "the" before NIH.
  10. The event was also to protest Trump's threat to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and decrease funding for scientific research and K–12 science programs,[6][9] among other policies.[10] -- please specify what "other policies" are, or remove this as vague.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Please note the "all" in Please reply below all, above. Please move all your replies, below, here, below. Sagecandor (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, started replying before seeing this. Hopefully you can follow along easily. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, just please move them all down below now, please, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  1. Replaced with "amid". ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I eliminated 2 commas by making the alt names parenthetical. I don't really see how to reduce further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I see what you mean, but I'm not actually sure the group sought advice from the Women's March organizers before launching the Facebook page. The January mention was meant to note when the Women's March was held, so I adjusted the language accordingly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The source says, "The demonstration, which coincides with approximately 500 others across the world, is an Earth Day protest meant to push back against President Donald Trump's proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, threats to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and other such policies." I don't think "among other policies" is out of line, but I can remove if you feel strongly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further points

[edit]

Please reply below all:

  1. The organizers met through the event's Facebook page, which was launched in February 2017, and sought advice from the organizers of the Women's March on Portland, which was held in January 2017.[6] -- This should be at the beginning of this section. The February 2017 was the first thing to happen, so that should be first in that section.
  2. Prior to the march, Waltman and Wirz wrote a guest column in The Oregonian, in which the co-chairs described their motivation for organizing the event, noted some of Oregon's achievements in science, and encouraged people to "stand up for science".[7] -- Please change to Prior to the march, Waltman and Wirz wrote a guest column in The Oregonian, where they noted Oregon's achievements in science, and encouraged people to "stand up for science".[7]
  3. They said, "We stand in support of scientific inquiry, researchers, availability of data and evidence-based policy", and invited people who "love" science to participate.[7] -- please try to paraphrase this. These could be good Wikipedia articles to link to.
  4. Infobox: Website sciencemarchpdx.com = dead link.
  5. External links = official website = dead link.
  6. They emphasized that all people were invited to participate, not just scientists,[11] and anticipated participation by as many as 10,000 demonstrators.[2][6][8] -- please replace "as many as" with "approximately".
  7. Blumenauer referred to the Trump administration in his speech, saying, "We have failed in the political process because they've made science partisan. They've undermined the credibility and confidence that people have, for example in science, dealing with climate."[2] He also spoke about the importance of evidence-based decision making: "It's illegal to use evidence on the effectiveness of medical procedures to guide what the federal government pays for. This stuff is crazy. Not being able to use an evidence-based approach has dangerous consequences."[16] -- please cut down on quotes here and try to paraphrase.
  8. In her speech, Bonamici said, "Science is not a partisan issue (and) should not be a partisan issue, so there is a little bit of hope... We are going to go back to Washington, D.C., with all of you in our mind — this beautiful sea of science supporters, and fight for research, fight for science, fight for clean air, fight for clean water, and fight for our planet. So stay engaged, please. This is just the beginning."[16] -- please cut down on quotes here and try to paraphrase.
  9. Some crowd estimates "far exceeded" the anticipated 10,000 participants.[2] Some protesters wore science-themed costumes, including one dressed as an ant, astronauts, bio suits, and white lab coats.[16] -- please fix two sentences starting with word, "Some", in a row.
  10. Funds were transferred through the Xerces Society.[6] Portland Science Advocates was established as a nonprofit organization, and members hoped to continue the demonstration's mission after the march.[6] -- any update on this "hope", after the march has concluded?

Sagecandor (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  1. I think it's best to introduce the people behind the march before mentioning how they organized. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One quote isn't harmful, especially for something as specific as "scientific inquiry, researchers, availability of data and evidence-based policy". ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Removed official website from infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Removed official website from EL section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Trimmed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Trimmed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not that I've seen. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: How do you feel about combining the "Organizers" and "Motivation" sections? I think "Organizers and motivation" would work just fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged these 2 sections. If you prefer otherwise, we can easily revert. But I think less segmenting is nice here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer:I really appreciate the polite and collegial tone in the further replies in the latter part of this GA Review. Thank you !!! I'll re-evaluate a bit more soon. Almost all done, hopefully !! Sagecandor (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more remaining thingies

[edit]

Please reply below all:

  1. Checklinks tool shows 2 red dead links, 5 brown expiring news links, and 2 blue internal error links.
  2. Dablinks checker shows no dablinks.
  3. Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a bit too much quoting from source here linked.
  4. The other speakers were -- please change "were" to "included".
  5. Rich Hatfield, who works as a senior conservation biologist for Xerces Society -- please change to Xerces Society senior conservation biologist Rich Hatfield
  6. Shashi Jain, an educator and innovation manager at Intel -- please change to Intel educator and innovation manager Shashi Jain
  7. Gabe Sheoships, a citizen of the Cayuse and Walla Walla tribes of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation who serves as education director for Friends of Tryon Creek and an adjunct faculty member at Portland State University -- please pick one descriptor for this guy and just go with it, and not 3 descriptors. This is too much and too confusing per WP:Readers first.
  8. Around 11:00 am -- please change to At about 11:00 am.
  9. Around 11:00 am,[10] protesters began marching south along Naito Parkway,[12] through a 44-block portion of downtown,[10] before returning to the park around noon for a "Science Expo" and "Kid Zone", as well as live music.[1][2][13] -- four commas used in this sentence. Please break apart sentence in two.
  10. The demonstration ended around 4:00 pm.[10] -- please change "around" to "at about".

Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  1. I was unable to archive these deal URLs using the Wayback Machine, so I removed them and the content they sourced. Bummer! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I only see a problem with the quote by Bonamici, which is attributed properly. Otherwise, the appearances of "March for Science", "Tom McCall Waterfront Park", etc., aren't really something we should be concerned about. These are basic place names and not copyrighted text. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I removed his status as a member of two tribes, but left his professional roles, as these give context as to why he spoke at the event. Actually, so does the tribe info, but I'm picking my battles here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

[edit]
@Another Believer:GA passed. Thank you very very very much for the change in tone and responsiveness in the latter part of this GA Review. Really appreciate it !!! Sagecandor (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough review. I appreciate your time and assistance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:10, 13 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_for_Science_Portland/GA1&oldid=790464936"