Talk:Ralph Larkin/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be happy to review this article for GA candidacy. H1nkles (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1nkles (talk • contribs)

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Issues of verifiability have been addressed per comments below.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Question on image is addressed below

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

The lead is fine, you mention his book, "Beyond Revolution: A New Theory of Social Movements," twice in the lead, this isn't necessary, once is enough. Otherwise it appears to summarize the subject well. I'm not a photo expert, I note a general authorization via OTRS for the image, but there is also a personality rights warning. I just want to make sure we're on the up and up with the image. I think we're fine but again, not being completely versed on all the ins and outs of the WP image rules makes me unsure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1nkles (talk • contribs)

I copyedited the lede, removing the dup mention of the book's title. As for the image, yes it is fine, the template commons:Template:personality rights is commonly added on pictures of living people, and the image is used under an appropriate free-use license. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great sounds good, thanks for the response. H1nkles (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching

This sentence, "Larkin was contacted by the press for comment on the Columbine High School massacre, and stated that there are multiple factors which stimulate violence in our society" should have quotation marks at, "that there are multiple factors which stimulate violence in our society", unless I'm missing something. It sounds like a direct quote, unless this is a paraphrase.
I'm not sure about the significance of the above statement. On it's own it seems a bit generic. There are multiple factors that stimulate violence, there isn't anything really noteworthy in that statement as it currently stands. Can it be expanded? Did he outline some of the factors that stimulated violence in Columbine? Or does he connect some of his other research into social movements with this thought? I guess as a reader I'm left thinking it doesn't take an expert in sociology to know that. Am I making sense? H1nkles (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded on this, using info from the cited source. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm a little concerned about the references.

Ref [15] is a dead link.
Refs 1–6, and 11 and 12 are references from books written or co-written by Larkin. This means roughly half of the references are from Larkin's own words (a.k.a. primary source). Per WP:PSTS the MOS tries to steer clear of using primary sources for referencing. Now this section says primary sources can be used with care, and since these are books written by the subject of the article rather than say a diary one could argue that these are not primary sources at all. So I'm willing to consider these sources credible but I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
Ref [17] is a book review and I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1nkles (talk • contribs)

I fixed ref 15 with a link to the Internet Archive. I agree it is always preferable to have secondary sources over and above primary sources, but in this case I believe I have exhausted all possible places for secondary source biographical info. The sources currently used that are associated with the article's subject are pretty much only used to provide matter-of-fact info, and are not used to provide commentary/analysis/interpretive statements. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you understand the importance of this policy and as I said, this being a primary source at all is debatable. I'll move forward with the review and am satisfied with your response. H1nkles (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall thoughts

The article is good and I will likely pass it. I'm going to hold it for now just to discuss the issues raised above, specifically related to the sourcing and photo. It's short but I don't see a comprehensive issue because the subject's notoriety is tied to his research and publications, specifically related to Columbine, and that is covered here. Perhaps a little on his personal life wouldn't hurt but I wouldn't hold up the GA due to that. I'll give it a week and see where we're at. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've done a good amount of research on the subject, I am just not sure there is info out there in WP:RS/WP:V sources on his personal life. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I will pass the article as it currently stands. Well done. H1nkles (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]