Talk:True Davidson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PocklingtonDan (talk · contribs) 18:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is FAIL; there are a few issues. 1) There are several issues with the layout of the "selected works", mainly including lack of capitalisation of work titles, for example "Canada in story and song; a pageant" should read "Canada in Story and Song; A Pageant" or similar. There's also a few problems with some of the prose: for example, the sentence "She made the surprising announcement that she wished to run as a Liberal". Why? What is surprising about it? "Davidson had a reputation for never mincing words. She would always say what was on her mind" This two-sentence form is clumsy since the statements are linked. The rest of the paragraph just seems to be a list, albeit in sentence form, of various quotes relating to her use of her tongue. It is clumsily written and needs to flow better. "Don't be addled man" is a simple error of grammar: it should be "Don't be addled, man". Just needs a good proofread/copy-edit. There is (or was) a league of copyeditors or similar on wikipedia that you can search for to help you out with this if you feel you need some assistance. Some of the prose is plain confusing: in "early life" section you state "Her father, John Wilson Davidson was a Methodist minister. Her mother, Mary Elfeda Pomeroy, was the daughter of a Methodist minister. She had a younger sister named Marsh.[3] At the time of her death she had two nephews, Michael and David Cobden.[4]". Strictly speaking, the "her death" relates to the younger sister, who is the immediately preceding pronoung. So the sister died? But then the sister had two nephews? So that would be True's children? What an odd way to mention them. Its just confusing, needs re-writing for clarity. I can continue to give lots of examples, but it just needs a good thorough copy-edit before it is GA quality.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No problems in the lead section that I noticed. No obvious problems with manual of style observance that I could see. Some puffery as noted in other sections below, relating to selective inclusion of facts to paint the subject in a more positive light on several facts (her debate record, her car crash - see below) so HOLD on this account, which counts as editorializing. No use of euphemisms and neologisms noted. No weasel words spotted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I have verified that this article is not a prank and seems to tie in in broad strokes with other sources. I have not yet checked other sources listed in the article but sources such as East York Historical Society confirm the basic facts around this person. Several random refs have been checked and appear to confirm claims in the article. The bibliography is given in the correct format. However, some cites are lacking proper information. For example, not all URLs have date of retrieval. On HOLD until this is sorted.
	2b. 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).	Quite a few statements use "felt" and have an unfortunate double-whammy combination of being written far too vaguely and without any cites. "disastrous results of the 1951 provincial election" should be "gaining only 3% of the vote in the 1951 provincial election^[1]". "She felt that the party was moving away from grassroots volunteers" should be "Davidson stated in an interview to Fox News that she believed the party was moving away from grassroots volunteers^[2]". "She felt that party politics should stay out of local councils" should be "Davidson stated in a 1971 interview that party politics should stay out of local councils^[3]", etc, etc. There are also some peacock words: "She was also a formidable debater" should be "Davidson won 14 out of her 16 public debates^[4]". "was one of Toronto's most colourful politicians" should be "was described as "colourful" by X^[5]". I do worry that your article is based on only 2 main sources and that this should be expanded if possible, but I see no official GA criteria for this. I am not failing you on this ground since this section is failed already for other reasons, but I do think you should try and expand this if possible, ideally from primary sources such as council records if available online (quite a few are these days) etc.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no attempt at analysis or synthesis that would fall foul of attempts at original research. I will confirm when checking 2a that all stated facts, especially any bold or unlikely claims, are cited, and that the cites check out.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article is exceedingly narrow ( a single individual, and not one of worldwide notoriety) so it is relatively trivial to trace the timeline of their life, and relatively important to cover it all without gaps. There are a couple of notable gaps currently, such as the 1962-1966 period noted in Darke's biography, featuring the arguments over East York's amalgamation. Given that this gap is obvious, and this material is easy to find, I don't find such a gap in the person's professional history acceptable for a GA article. I think you need to run through and make sure that you have covered all major periods of her professional life, as reported by the authorities that you are quoting. HOLD for now until this is addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	PASS, I have no concerns over the article's focus. It stays well on topic throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	An article has to cover all the facts, even those that do not portray the subject in a positive light. It seems from other sources that the accident, which is passed off here in one sentence, is actually quite significant, and in particular that it was True who was behind the wheel and effectively caused her father's death by her own admission driving too fast in a poorly maintained car. I think if you are going to highlight True's public service and good works, fairness demands that you also detail her public controversies. Causing the death of your own father by driving too fast is clearly notable for a public figure. It needs including, and in a neutral manner. Also, the article mentions "During her time in local politics she ran in 11 elections and never lost." in the lead, but doesn't cover her record for provincial electrions, presumably because it is not so impressive. If you mention one, you mention both. Be as neutral as possible, we are presenting facts not trying to big someone up and use impressive stats and peacock words and selective facts only. HOLD for now until this is addressed
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article seems to have history of edit wars within the last 12 months, the volume of edits is low, the main editor who has done recent cleanup seems from their edit history to be well intentioned and to have a clean recent edit history, as well as respond to queries on their talk page. No objections here on grounds of stability, so this is a PASS for this section
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	This is a fail at the moment on the provision of fair-use rationales for non-free content. I suggest that you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_rationale_examples#Historical_photographs and then update the rationale given on File:TrueDavidson2.jpg and File:TrueDavidson.jpg, or else replace these images with alternatives if available
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All the images given are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions so this is a PASS. I would note however, that you should ideally add some more consistency here. Some images show her "age 30" and others "in 1971". I would change all to read "ages 30, in 1931" and "age 70, in 1971" etc to make them standardised and easy to compare.
	7. Overall assessment.	I count 4 pass critera, 3 fail, 4 hold, so my recommendation is to fail at this attempt, since I believe this will take more than 7 days to clear up and I have concerns in a number of GA categories. I would recommend you to fix these issues and resubmit, and your article will be in great shape.

^ blah blah, p. 12
^ blah blah, p. 2
^ omg wtf bbq, p. 2
^ foo bar, p. 10
^ ref here, p. 2

[1] , p. 12

[2] , p. 2

[3] wtf bbq, p. 2

[4] r, p. 10

[5] ref here, p. 2

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]