Talk:Pennsylvania/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This is in pretty good shape, but it needs some work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am outliniing a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs), ClairSamoht (talk · contribs), Thisisbossi (talk · contribs), PAWiki (talk · contribs), Boothy443 (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted largely for uncited content and problematic references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the alt text checker this article needs WP:ALT text. (Not required to retain GA status, but it is becoming common in articles)
~~According to the dablink checker this article has eight dablinks that need to be addressed.~~
According to the link checker this article has eleven deadlinks.
Several refs appear in the middle of sentences. Please make sure all refs follow punctuation marks.
Please reformat to either expand or merge one line paragraphs such as "Pennsylvania has 51 miles (82 km)[12] of coastline along Lake Erie and 57 miles (92 km)[13] of shoreline along the Delaware Estuary.", "Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the U.S. Constitution on December 12, 1787,[45] five days after Delaware became the first." and "The Peace of Breda between England, France and the Netherlands confirmed the English conquest on July 21, 1667,[28][29] although there were temporary reversions."
The article has many bare refs used in footnotes. Please reformat as proper full inline citations.
Other bare refs in the article text such as those at Pennsylvania#Climate should be reformated as inline citations.
Please read WP:CAPTION#Wording as it relates to the use of periods.
~~Several image files no longer exist.~~

I will likely add other issues as I see that these are being worked on. I will reevaluate this article after one week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab links have all been fixed, and the links to image files that no loinger exist have been removed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why do ref links have to be at the end of sentences or following punctuation marks? I don't recall seeing anything about that in the MoS, and I've seen plenty of instances where refs have been in the middle of sentences without punctuation. GlassCobra 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a misunderstanding; refs do not have to be at the end of sentences or following punctuation, but when they are at the end of sentences or combined with punctuation, then they follow the punctuation, except for emdashes, which they precede. See WP:FN, specifically, WP:REFPUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing it up. GlassCobra 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1], especially the bit that says "Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation" (my emphasis)--Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Several of the points raised by the reviewer above are irrelevant to the good article criteria and ought to be struck, except for recommendations should the article ever be put forward at FAC. Not only is no particular citation style mandated (citations before or after punctuation, citations mid-sentence, etc.), but there is no requirement for alt text. Neither are the presence or absence of dab links part of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should not be struck unless the article has been improved accordingly. Those are my suggestions to improve the article. Fixing each of the concerns would improve the article, except the newly discovered allowance for randomly-placed citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a GA review, and the review ought to be consistent with the GA criteria, which your review is not. GA Sweeps isn't an opportunity for you to force your own personal preferences on other editors. If you find yourself unable to assess this article against the GA criteria then I suggest that you close this review and let it be done by someone who can. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes there is no alt text requirement in WP:WIAGA, but unless you have a problem with me making WP accessible to the blind, I will continue to request it be added to articles if it is not too much trouble. I will also continue to request dablink cleanup. This is my 50th GA Sweeps. SInce 50 is a round number, it will be my last.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have a problem with you assessing articles against your own personal criteria instead of against the GA criteria. If you believe that the GA criteria ought to be changed to accommodate your personal preferences then I suggest that you try and make your case at WT:GAN. Until then, I am greatly relieved to hear that this will be your last GA Sweeps review if this is typical of your work. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are there instructions somewhere that limit GA Sweeps suggestions to those directly related to WP:WIAGA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What does this look like to you? "This is in pretty good shape, but it needs some work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am outliniing a partial list of issues that need to be addressed.". That says need to be addressed. You're perfectly at liberty to suggest whatever improvements you like, but not to make demands that go beyond the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In truth nothing needs to be addressed. Several things could be addressed to bring the article more in line with WP:WIAGA and other things could be addressed to bring the article up to a higher quality standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As an uninvolved user, I strongly suggest passing the GA sweeps, which pertains only to items relevant to the GA criteria, and requesting the other things in a normal thread on the talk page. Most editors will have the courtesy to strive to at least respond to those requests. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not pass GA Sweeps even isolating WIAGA criteria like the lack of refs and abundant deadlinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. of the other 47 completed and 2 active GA Sweeps reviews I have done no one has put up a fuss about doing ALT:Text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody's making a fuss about doing alt text here either. The fuss has been caused by you insisting on alt text, among other things, for this article to keep its GA listing, things that are not part of the GA criteria, like the positioning of citations before/after punctuation. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Due to the extensive imagery in this article I have made it clear that alt text is not required to retain GA status. I admit, I had been previously misinformed about the location of refs. However, a look at the footnotes at the bottom shows that the majority of the refs are incomplete or bare refs. Also many things are uncited. This will cause Sweeps delisting if not resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine. And that would be a delisting for the right reasons, not meeting the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Glad to see we are agreeing here now. The lack of references in sections is definitely a legitimate GA concern. With regard to the ref formatting, reflinks is a tool that can help out somewhat. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]