Talk:Rebecca Tobey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rebecca Tobey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

• The image of Rebecca Tobey's "Path Finder" requires a description in the "alt" parameter; please add one
  • Done

Lead

Paragraph 1

• "Rebecca Tobey is an American artist based in Santa Fe, New Mexico." --> I don't know why but the "based in" part reads awkwardly to me; can you something else be placed here instead?
  • C/e by GOC
• Has Tobey only created animal sculptures? You can talk about her writing work as well here
  • Added about her book

Paragraph 2

• This kind-of looks like an afterthought; could it be expanded?
  • Expanded

Early life

Paragraph 1

• Is her full name available, including middle?
• Use her full name here, as in "Rebecca Tobey was born in 1948 in Mason, Texas...." please
• "Right from childhood she had fascination for animals and nature." --> "Throughout her childhood she always had a fascination for animals and nature."
• "Right from childhood she had fascination for animals and nature." --> Source?

Paragraph 2

• Why was she sent to a boarding school in Lowell, Maryland? I thought she lived in Texas?
  • Clarified now
• Link "Lowell, Maryland" to its respective article please
  • There is no article on this
• "The first sculpture which Rebecca and her husband created was in 1997, which was named "Wind River"..." Which is a transition or contrast word, yet there is no contrast word; please replace it and reword the entire sentence
  • Edited by GOC
• ""Wandering Star" was another of their creation sculpted in 1992 which has on one side carving of "southwestern dragon" carved onto the side." --> ""Wandering Star" was another of their creations, which was sculpted in 1992 and on one side has a "southwestern dragon" carved onto the side."
  • Corrected
• "The second sculpture was a large curved buffalo named "The Tobey Buffalo". "Wandering Star" was another of their creation sculpted in 1992 which has on one side carving of "southwestern dragon" carved onto the side." --> Source?
  • Corrected

Move to Santa Fe

Paragraph 1

• "to the southwest city. There she worked as the director..." --> "to the southwest city; there she worked as the director..."
• "his art work..." --> "his artwork..."
  • Corrected
• "team in art work..." --> "team in artwork..."
  • Corrected

Paragraph 2

• "Tobey started working, based on her conceptual thinking and pictures, creating sculptures in three dimensional mode." --> "Tobey started working, based on her conceptual thinking and pictures, creating sculptures in three dimensional mode." Sentence is grammatically incorrect; please reword + source?
  • Corrected
• "Her animal sculptures are creations with overlaid features which are unique and reveal something new to every viewer." --> Personally, this statement sounds a bit bias and also has no source
  • Corrected by GOC
• "Some of her ceramic sculptures have graffiti inscribed on them and with perforations on them which "create interesting compositions using negative space."[4]" --> Uses "on them" twice, back–to–back
  • Corrected
• "With her husband she created many sculptures of which the 15 ft sculpture of bear called the "Spirit Walker" made of bronze was exhibited and donated in 2000 to the Law School of Baylor University; it has sketches on the history of Waco, inscribed on its surface.[1][2]" --> Please reword it
  • Corrected by GOC

Personal life

• Kinda short; anything else to add?
  • Added

Works by Gene and Rebecca Tobey

• No sources for the entire section
  • Added a source
• Remember, Wikipedia is not a list of trivial information

End of GA Review:

Although I would love to see this article become GA–status, I'm concerned over a few things regarding it. Primarily, I do not think this article is broad in its coverage, one of the six required criteria for a GA. Also, this article contains a lot of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. I feel like this article could be pushed further to bring it to its highest potential, but this requires expansion. I would also recommend that the nominator nominates this for a copyedit. I will place this on hold for seven days to allow for all of these changes. Please @PING me with any questions, comments, or concerns. I do not mean to be harsh, I just am trying to perform a honest and thorough review. Thank you and good luck. Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

• Carbrera The article has been copy edited by GOC. I have added more text and addressed all issues. Pl see.Nvvchar. 04:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nvvchar Oh that's great news! Glad to look over it and it looked great! At first I didn't expect to pass it, but you have definitely expanded it to its highest potential! Great work! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

• Carbrera Thanks for promoting the article.Nvvchar. 03:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Note, that after discussion on the talk page, we informally re-assessed the review and consensus (including the reviewer) was the article fails GA criteria 1b ("list incorporation") and 3a ("broad in coverage"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Article quality

@Nvvchar: and @Carbrera:. Please don't take this the wrong way but I disagree with this meeting Good Article criteria. For a biography I don't honestly think it comes close. It tells me very little about her life with no coherent structure, and barely any indication of when she did certain things. Most sources about her seem to be self promotional ones to the point I doubt there's even enough material to produce a proper GA. Reqesting another opinion from Ritchie333. I would like to see it further improved but I'm not sure it's possible given the sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. At 3566 bytes of prose, this article is probably not meeting GA criteria #3a ("Broad in coverage"). Doing a quick Google Books search I can see a number of journals that mention Tobey's art and cover their working methods (random example). Also, the "list of works" does not seem to meet the guidelines for list incorporation, which is GA criteria #1b. So there are two immediate parts of the GA criteria that do not obviously appear to be met, and hence this article should not have passed GA review at this time. I also agree that the choice of sources is not great; some are primary sources which should be used with extreme care on a biography of a living person, and mean the article is still at risk of being sent to WP:AFD on notability grounds.

We can do this the "easy way", which is to revert the review and get someone else to do it, or the "hard way" which is to send it to Good article re-assessment, where there is the risk that highly experienced editors such as Fram and Eric Corbett will see it and give it a roasting. Sorry, but that's pretty much the only options we've got.

Additionally, I am concerned that Carbrera recently had This Is What the Truth Feels Like fail a GA review. I know SNUGGUMS is a hard taskmaster and does very detailed reviews, but IMHO they are one of the best GA reviewers currently active, and if they say your work fails GA because of plagiarism, it's a cause for concern that you should be reviewing. Sorry to be blunt like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely get a serious grilling at GAR. I'm not going to take it there. I've asked Women in Red to see if they can improve it. Honestly it would need quite a lot of work to really be at GA level, but I think it could probably be improved to a B class one, though I don't see many solid sources being picked up in a google search. Let's give it a week anyway and see if it improves.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the easiest way forward is to re-open the review, change it to failed (with a note saying consensus agreed it didn't meet criteria 1b and 3a even after improvements), and re-assess the article as B-class. @Carbrera: If you can agree to that, then we can resolve this quickly with the minimum of drama, and that's always a good thing. In particular, I don't want you getting the impression we're having a go at you, just chalk this one up to experience and you'll be a better GA reviewer for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: @Dr. Blofeld: Sorry for the delays in my reply, I've been extremely busy expanding This Is What the Truth Feels Like. I can agree to what was mentioned; I believe I noted that I was concerned for the article earlier, and was unaware of the additional sources out there. I'm not too familiar with Tobey's work and have only come across it in some dusty book in my loft that only briefly compared one's work with Tobey's. I agree I shouldn't have reviewed the article, as I was completely oblivious to what was out there and readily available. I apologize for this inconvenience I have brought upon the article.

On a different note... In regards to This Is What the Truth Feels Like, I can honestly and confidently say that I was not the user who placed the quote that is being called out for plagiarism; in addition, I believe the user who did add them mistakingly left out quotation marks and had no intentions of plagiarizing anyone's work. If you want to discuss anything else with me, feel free to ping me; this is like my second home. Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

I think the review was OK, could have been worse, though you did miss some glaring ones like the co-uthored typo. But I don't think this should have ever been nominated or passed as a GA unless stronger material can be found. I do appreciate that Nvvchar has made the effort to create it and promote it, but in this case it's difficult to accept it as a GA quality entry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the paperwork on the review. Carbrera, I'll believe you didn't add the close paraphrasing yourself, however when you nominate an article for GA you need to take responsibility for all of it, including the bits you didn't write yourself. This is why, in general, most GA candidates I throw up have a comprehensive rewrite from top to bottom, and I think Blofeld's working procedure is the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)