Talk:So God Made a Farmer

correct link missing

the link of full uncrop pic of PHarvey goes to the current WH.gov not 43rds
closest match to the intent of link (wider crop)(& wiki capture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FrankRobinsonMedalOfFreedom.jpg
(WayBack Machine didn't find either)

here is "the shot" too (avail. for now)
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6690,00.html/#/photoessay/image/0228092124_M_022809_harvey04-jpgGreg0658 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think there's any dispute that it's a Whitehouse photo. The fact that the link was deprecated shouldn't mean anything. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:So God Made a Farmer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 17:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I decided to review this nomination in the end. It looks to be at or about GA-level, as its well referenced, but I've not yet checked these. So, on this basis, its not appropriate to consider a "quickfail" and I'm going start to a full review.

I'll be reviewing the article against WP:WIAGA section by section, starting at The speech section and finishing with the Lead.

At this point of the review I going to be concentrating mostly on "problems", if any. I'm not too hot on American-English so I'll probably raising a few questions on grammar - I might be wrong on US grammar, so tell me if I am. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The speech -
  • untitled first subsection -

• I'm not sure about the phrase: "The New York Times spoke further to elements of his speaking style in its 2009 obituary: ....", does "spoke further to elements of" make sense or should it be "spoke further to on elements of..."?
• The final paragraph, "The speech also ran in Paul Harvey's syndicated newspaper column in 1986. In an introduction, Harvey disclaimed authorship: " is unreferenced. I know that the direct quotation has a citation (that's a requirement - all direct quotations must have citations) and the same citation probably covers the whole paragraph, but the paragraph and the quote each need a citation.

• • Prior versions -

• I suspect that the "1979 speech" a typo, as there is mention of both a 1978 and a 1979 speech?

• This single-paragraph is mostly OK, but I would suggest that using This to start two sentences could lead to confusion. The first "This column" appears to be referring to the August 1975 column, so that could be stated explicitly. The next "This was" is clearly referring to 1940, so it could be left as it is.

• Super Bowl XLVII commercial -
  • untitled first subsection -

• This section is too vague in respect of date(s). All this section tells us specifically is that the ad "ran during the fourth quarter.[12]". Ref 12 is dated 3 Feb 2013, so the ad probably ran 4th quarter of 2012. So, why not state specifically "in 4th quarter of 2012", or "Oct to Dec 2012", etc, which ever is more accurate?
• A minor point, but the "speech" is now referred to as a "poem", its fairly clear was is meant, but some consistency on what it is called would be good.
• Again, there is some naming inconsistency on what the "ad" is called. In the first paragraph its first called "a two-minute Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial", but that is piped to Super Bowl advertising, then its called a commercial, next its called "A spot" (I think a "spot" is a commercial/advert), then it's called an "ad" twice (and the pural "ads", once) and finally in the second paragraph its called an "ad", but also a "video".

• • Reception -

• Generally OK. There's a mixture of "ad" and "spot", I assume a spot is a ad, but perhaps there is a difference?

• WP:Lead -

• This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points (see WP:Lead for full details, as there are further requirements). The current lead sort of does these, but its rather "thin". In particular:

• No mention of when the Super Bowl XLVII commercial happened/was run.
• No mention of the "Genesis creation narrative" or where its name "So God Made a Farmer" came from.
• Its all most half of the body of the article, but the summary of the Super Bowl XLVII commercial makes no mention of financial success (target and donations to the foundation), critical reception, including facebook clone and youtube comparisons.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold".

The work needed to get this nomination up to standard is fairly minor, the Lead needs the most work and the rest are matters or detail, clarity and/or grammar. This could probably done in an hour or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment My script-enforced wikibreak just ended. In regards to your concerns about the "fourth quarter", I think you misread the statement. As a Super Bowl commercial, it ran in the fourth quarter of the game. If you still think it's confusing, I can modify it. Ryan Vesey 20:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Yes, I seem to have misread it. Pyrotec (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to consistency, I left the initial "Super Bowl commercial" as it's necessary to separate it from other possible advertisements at the Super Bowl. I used "ad" from there on out. For video, I preceded it with YouTube, since a YouTube ad comes before a video. Ryan Vesey 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I updated the lead, but I'm a terrible lead writer. Are there any improvements to it you'd like to see? Ryan Vesey 21:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, the lead is much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is article not my normal "read", but I found it and I learnt some new things along the way.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice and the review. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)