Talk:Morleigh Steinberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion 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 15, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed in these comments, thanks!
I did some minor copyediting but there are still a few paragraphs that are quite short. Such as one-sentence-long paragraphs or two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Please try to merge this info elsewhere, or expand upon these paragraphs.
Please submit this article to copyediting requests through the WP:GOCE process, it might not be done in time for this review, but that's okay.
Please post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects asking for previously uninvolved editors to copyedit.
Early career and work with U2 - perhaps this sect can be split up keeping the main sect title but with two smaller subsects as well?
Marriage and family - seems jumbled together. Why is Subsequent career after this sect, when it contains info that appears concurrently?

2. Factually accurate?:

I'm sorry but there are serious problems here.
Cite number one is a big fail. It fails WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. That has got to go. The birthdate has got to go. I see it is also included in the infobox. An edit to Wikipedia is not itself a source, certainly not for a BLP. Best to stick to secondary sources.
Cite number 14 is not a cite. It is a link to an archive asking the reader to then do their own research. This also fails WP:SYNTH bigtime.
Please go back through all cites and use WP:CIT formatting and WP:CITE to expand upon fields. Examples include cites 4 and 48. Author? Date? Volume? Issue? Page number? Publisher?

3. Broad in coverage?:

Early life and education = any more on this? Can this section be expanded a bit more?
External links - any other relevant links that could be added?
Further reading - perhaps add a further reading sect with 4-5 additional sources for the curious reader?
See also - consider adding a See also sect with some relevant links, 3-4 or so?
Portals - consider adding portals to the bottom of the page using {{Portal bar}}.

4. Neutral point of view?:

My NPOV alarm bells are going off due to the poor judgment about Cite 1, as described, above.
Cite 14 is also a problem, as described, above. It's one thing for a secondary source like Rotten Tomatoes to aggregate information. It's another to simply ask the reader "see here".

5. Article stability?

Inspection of article edit history shows lots of recent changes, including some controversy. I note edit summaries like "restore info", etc.
Talk page inspection shows a great deal of back and forth discussion.
Is this article stable?
I'd appreciate a statement about article stability from the GA Nominator, and a brief summation of the talk page discussion and what has been going on lately with all the activity at this article.

6. Images?: One image used, File:1993 - Zooropa Tour 1993-05-15 - Lisbon mysterious ways em alvalade 93 640.jpg, image checks out okay.

NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed in these comments, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. On the three major points first:

Regarding the birth date, I think the research and logic behind it was sound, but you are correct, there is no secondary source that directly gives that date. So I have removed everything related to birth date or year.
Regarding the New York Times reviews, I don't see what I did as SYNTH, but people can disagree, so I have pulled the review comments out of the footnote and into the text and I have individually cited them. I have also taken out the "mixed" characterization of the reviews; readers can judge for themselves.
Regarding article stability, four different editors worked on the article originally and were credited on the DYK, including myself. So some of the Talk page activity relates to discussions among those editors. Some of the Talk page activity comes from (so far unsuccessful) attempts to get a license-usable image of the subject. And some of the Talk page activity came after the subject of the article, or a representative of the subject, apparently modified the article. When that happens, I believe that BLP concerns and transparency dictate that we carefully discuss those modification attempts. The "restore" edit summary related to dealing with one of those edits (the material restored has since been modified again, per more Talk discussions and this GAN review itself). But there have been few if any disagreements regarding content of the article and I believe from that perspective, it is quite stable.

Next I'll address your other comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding short paragraphs, I combined two short ones about the wedding. But there is no prohibition on two-sentence paragraphs; of the two that remain, I think the one on the birth of her children and where she felt was home is justified, because it's an important matter that shouldn't be combined with anything else, and I think the first paragraph of the lead is justified, as it follows MOS:BEGIN guidance in giving a quick takeaway on the subject for readers who just read that, before getting into the summarization of the specifics of her career and life.
Other than short paragraphs, do you have specific concerns about copyediting in this article? The Guide of Copy Editors is always backlogged, and I don't like to add to that backlog unless an article really needs it. Ditto to appealing to others on project talk pages.
Regarding article organization, there's no perfect structure, especially for a subject like this. A purely chronological organization breaks up material too much to give any thematic coherence, while a purely thematic organization jumps around too much in time and fails to portray causality. How to organize the article is one of the topics that was discussed on the Talk page and in edit summaries among the four editors, and the sort of hybrid approach you see is what we settled on and are happy with. The problem with breaking up the "Early career and work with U2" section is that the two threads in it go back and forth - you can't look at either her dance career or her involvement with U2 and other popular music artists in isolation, each turn was affecting the next. And adding two-level sectioning seems a bit much for a relatively short article like this.

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding cite formatting, every cite here is done using either {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} or short form for books. So I believe the formatting is consistent. I don't typically show volume, issue, or page number for popular magazines like People, as I think those are more appropriate for academic journals. I would put author for the People piece but there was no by-line. As for the Arcane Collective cite, the title, publisher, and accessdate is all that typically gets put down for undated organizational web pages. Maybe if you point me to a few more cites you have concerns about, I'll have a better idea of what you are getting at.
Regarding your breadth of coverage comments: Everything any of us have seen is already in the "Early life and education" section. I don't know of any useful external links other than the one there. Most potential "See also" entries are already linked to in the article, and thus not necessary. There is a Portal:U2, but I am kind of reluctant to slap it on here, since her association to the group is a little tangential. But I'm interested in what the other editors think. And if I knew of "4-5 additional sources" that gave information not already here, I would already have incorporated them into the article :-)

I think this covers all your comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good responses, above, thank you! I'll go over all this in more detail later. — Cirt (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review passed

GA Review passed. Thanks for the responsiveness to my above recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review and the pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)ç[reply]