Jump to content

Talk:Weed the People/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I was gonna review this nom, but then I got high :P ♫..... just kidding, I should at least have my comments for lead and infobox up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Now to start on those.....

Infobox

[edit]
  • File:Weed the People promotional poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
  • Is including coordinates common practice for events of this nature? I'm not familiar with their use frequency.
    • You know, I don't know. I've been wondering this myself. I almost asked someone to add a map, but then thought, do we display maps for where events took place? FWIW, the building is unlikely to ever be notable, so I don't think we'll have an issue of clashing coordinates. I'm not opposed to removing the coordinates if you or other editors prefer. If neither of us are really sure, I'm not sure who to ask...? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bri: Curious, do you have any thoughts on whether or not this article should have coordinates and/or a map? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background and planning

[edit]


    • @Another Believer: My apologies, I should have said "likely" did not have a break. The reporter is gathering reactions to the event. An individual gives their impression and is identified for the reader part way through their response in the written text. It seems completely logical to me - standard journalistic practice. There are two distinct sentences in the response. They cannot be combined into one sentence. Since the same person uttered both sentences in context, responding to the same event, I fail to see any reason not to quote them as I did. Trying to come up with a way to combine them into one sentence is not going to improve/change the reader's understanding of what Josh Taylor meant one iota. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is minor, so can do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Thank you, just not fully sure I understand what you have in mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this change does not follow standard conventions, though. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Twofingered Typist agrees. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't fabricate quotes; at no point in this is the word "blessed" used, only that police "gave it their blessing"

I'll get to "Event" in my next run. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks! Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns re: above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After some further thought, it might be best to paraphrase the Josh Taylor quote(s) when we can't say for certain whether the intent was one uninterrupted quote or not. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, What do you think about this change? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this gives some context about what he means about the "fireworks", so mentioning the holiday is helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good change. No objections to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Great! Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in. OK if I collapse this section for organizational purposes? Want to make sure all concerns are resolved for this section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Section looks good, though leave collapsing to me, and I'll probably get to it in my next batch. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Event

[edit]

Once those are set, I'll get to "Commentary". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
  • I found a reference that said "North Portland" [1], but am having trouble finding "Eliot" specifically. Have tried both general Google/Bing searches and ProQuest. I'd really like to nail it down. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri, Well, sources don't say the neighborhood in which the event was held, but based on a Google Maps search, we can easily confirm the geographic area in which the warehouse is located. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it's not like you tried to pulled something out of nowhere, and to be fair, navboxes aren't as strict on inline citation matters now that I give it more thought. Definitely not controversial. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you can use those within "Event". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, I think not mentioning Eliot in the prose, but keeping the category and navbox is totally appropriate. I think we might all be fine with the current version re: neighborhood, if I'm understanding correctly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When possible, it is preferred to have anything listed in navboxes also supported by article prose, even if not as bad as outright inserting claims supported by nothing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Ok, added back Eliot and kept's Bri's preference for North Portland as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]
  • Prose: Still needs some touching up
  • Referencing: A few citations need adjusting, and one bit of text isn't quite faithful to its attributed reference
  • Coverage: Nothing of concern
  • Neutrality: No bias detected
  • Stability: All good
  • Media: Image used is A-OK
  • Verdict: On hold for seven days beginning now. If the remaining concerns are sufficiently addressed within that time, then I will pass this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through once more, this looks good enough to meet GA standards, so passing! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.