Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Ammodramus

Status: Completed

Date Started: 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Date Ended: 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Recruiter: Khazar2, then Quadell

---

Hey Ammodramus,

Lately we've developed a mini "course" for GA reviewers, but since you're an experienced editor, I imagine we can move through most of these steps very quickly. The short version is just for you to look over the relevant material--WP:GA? and WP:GACN--and then move on to your first review. If you'd find it helpful to do a brief review quiz, I have one posted below, along with sample answers (not all of these have a strictly right or wrong answer). Reviewing is ultimately an art and not a science, context is always important, and even experienced reviewers will sometimes disagree.

Anyway, we can go through the steps here at whatever pace is convenient for you, whether that's doing it all this week or over a period of months. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Optional quiz

Can an article pass GA if the article...

1. includes a dead link?

2. makes heavy use of the word "claimed"?

3. makes heavy use of non-gender neutral language, such as "mankind"?

4. makes heavy use of the word "currently"?

5. violates WP:OVERLINK?

6. has no discussion of the childhood of a biographical subject?

7. includes a paragraph with no inline citations?

8. includes a sentence with no inline citations?

9. includes a quotation with no inline citation?

10. is only six paragraphs long?

11. has four paragraphs added by a new editor during the review process?

12. includes a photograph of a 19th-century British soldier with an EU public domain copyright tag?

13. fails to present all viewpoints as equally valid?

14. includes a red link in the text?

15. includes a link to a YouTube video of unknown copyright status?

16. has inconsistently formatted citations?

17. includes a spelling error?

18. is based on only three sources?

19. includes the statement "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball", sourced to a blog with no obvious claim to expertise?

20. has an amusement park as its subject, but fails to discuss one of the park's roller coasters?

• Some possible answers (click here when finished)

First review

Once you feel you've got a handle on the basic policies, take a look at the queue at WP:GAN and think about what you might be interested in reviewing. I'd suggest picking something short and reasonably noncontroversial for your first review. Start whenever you like, and take whatever approach you like. You can see models of my reviews at User:Khazar2/GAR and you can see a variety of approaches in the current reviews at WP:GAN. I'd just ask that you not close it as a pass or a fail until I've had a chance to read it and comment here, too.

I doubt you're someone who would have any problems with this, but the biggest advice I have to new GA reviewers is to always focus on diplomacy. Getting a GA review is one of the only times an average editor will have someone read and critique her work at length; human considerations aside, it's important that it not be a nasty experience just so we can retain our volunteers. That's not to say that you should ever soften the criteria or pass something that isn't ready--but be friendly, be patient, take an extra moment to praise good aspects even of a disastrously poor article, encourage the nominator to renominate a failed article after revisions, and always thank them for their work (unless they nominated without making any edits, which occasionally happens). Approach it as a collaboration, and consider framing your less essential comments as questions or possibilities instead of a long list of statements saying "this must be changed" (you can always put your foot down more firmly later). If you find that you and the nominator are at an impasse, just say, "hey, I've been wrong before--I'm happy to get another opinion", and ask a noticeboard or another reviewer for a second opinion. If they're upset that you failed their article, tell them it's an area where reasonable people can disagree and suggest they renominate for another opinion or go to WP:GAR.

This may all sound a bit touchy-feely, but my experience is that reviewers who neglect the human aspect because they "don't have the time to stroke egos" or "call 'em like they see 'em" invariably end up in protracted conflicts; these waste everyone's time and drive people away from the encyclopedia. Taking an extra moment to establish a cordial relationship with a reviewee through mentioning some common interest, a word of praise, a joke, or just thanking them for their hard work saves you a lot of time in the long run (and is more fun, too).

Looking forward to working with you on this! My plan is to just look over your shoulder for 3-4 reviews and then you'll be a "licensed" reviewer. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through the critera, the what-the-criteria-are-not essay, and your quiz, and I think I'm more or less ready to get started. I've been looking through the list of GA nominees for articles that are in my areas of interests. A few questions before I begin:

• Since you're going to be monitoring this, are there any topic areas that you'd rather I avoided? I don't think I could do justice to an article on sports, or TV shows, or manga; there may be subjects about which you feel the same way. I'd rather start with an article that you'd be comfortable reviewing yourself.
• In looking through the list, I see that for a number of the candidate articles, the "start review" link is followed by "Reviews: (number)". I can't figure out what this means, and WP:GAN doesn't seem to say. If other editors have been doing some kind of reviews, would it be advisable for me to look through them (especially while I'm new to the process)?
• Is this the right place for us to discuss this, or would you rather it took place on your talk page or mine?

Look forward to working with you on this. - Ammodramus (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Great!

• I'm comfortable reviewing anything that's not highly technical (i.e., no math or science concepts, though a math or science biography would probably be okay).
• The review number is the number of GA reviews that editor has performed. A higher number often means a more experienced GA editor, though bear in mind that some editors produce dozens of GAs without ever performing a review, and some reviewers review 100s of GAs while passing only one or two of their own. Also, the bot that controls this number is notoriously buggy, so some editors have a number dozens or hundreds times higher or lower than they should.
• Yep, this is the best place for us to centralize the discussion.

So go ahead and start a review whenever and however you like; just let me know here what you choose, and don't close it as a pass or fail until I've had a chance to look. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of (but haven't yet started on) Jaime Herrera Beutler, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Is this too ambitious for my first try? Articles on sitting politicians are probably going to be less stable than articles on less controversial subjects, and I know from the ones on my watchlist that they give rise to lots of POV issues.

On a first read-through, I find some of the prose a bit clunky. I assume that I can fix some of that myself. There might also be citation issues (for example, in the "Political positions" section, there are a number of unsourced interest-group ratings; and in the "Washington State House of Representatives" section, the article states that she replaced "former Rep. Richard Curtis, who resigned amid a sex scandal" with no citation.

I won't actually initiate a review unless you're OK with it; if you think I ought to start with something less controversial, I'll be guided by your advice. Thanks for your replies so far -- Ammodramus (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That one's fine with me. As you say, it'll need some careful double-checking for neutrality, and is going to need clean-up in a variety of ways. But this'll be a good review for you to take on, because it's one of those rare cases where I don't have a good sense at first glance of whether or not this will end up passing. My experience is that 80% of GA reviews end up being some tweaks and then a pass, or an obvious fail; most experienced contributors don't need a lot of help, and most inexperienced contributors don't come close. This is one of the minority that could still go either way.

So I'd say go ahead and start reviewing whenever you like. I'll keep the article and review on my watchlist and give advice on this page if I see any early problems; toward the end of the review I'll post any additional comments I have here or at the review page. (One person will inevitably find issues the second doesn't whenever two people review, so don't see that as any judgement on your own review when it happens.) Enjoy! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

First review scratchwork

Articles about current politicians and political issues can be difficult to get to GA level: they draw edits from a lot of people, who vary widely in their writing ability and understanding of Wikipolicies like NPOV and NOR. I'm afraid that this one isn't ready for GA yet, and it'll take substantial work to get it there. I hope you'll continue to work on it, and will renominate it after you've addressed the issues below; it'd be a very good thing to have more high-quality articles about current members of Congress.

I haven't gone through the complete review process, since it'd clearly take a good deal of work to get the article to GA. In particular, I haven't spot-checked citations for copyvios and for fidelity to sources.

• 1. Well-written

• Clear, concise prose; spelling and grammar OK

--Article uses "Herrera" and "Herrera Beutler" somewhat interchangeably. This needs to be standardized, in one of two ways: either her current name (HB) throughout; or "Herrera" for events preceding her name change, "HB" thereafter.

--Organization of article is somewhat ill-defined. We're told about HB taking her husband's name before we're told about the marriage; and the daughter with Potter's syndrome shows up in two different places. I'd suggest a more chronological approach, with the marriage, the name-change, and the daughter appearing at the appropriate times rather than being exiled to a "Personal life" section.

--Same problem with "Tenure" (in US House) and "Political positions" sections: material seems to be somewhat randomly distributed among these.

• Complies with MOS re. lead sections, layout, words to watch, list incorporation

--Lead is probably too short for an article of this length; omits important aspects (e.g. general description of HB's political stance) and includes minor details (e.g. service as Senior Legislative Aide). Needs to be rewritten, focusing on most important aspects of article.

--Need to convert in-text external link (to map of 18th district) to citation; I'd suggest a brief text description of the district, with the map cited as its source.

--Section "Committee assignments" under Wash. State House only lists three committees; this would be very readable in prose format, so per WP:EMBED, should be presented thus rather than as a bullet-list.

• No copyright issues

• 2. Verifiable with no OR

• 2a. List of references, in accordance with WP:FNNR
• 2b. Inline citations for: direct quotes, statistics, published opinions, controversial statements, BLP issues

--In section "Early life...", need a citation for "Senior Legislative Aide": this title has been called into question by a blogger. I haven't investigated said blogger to find out how fringe-y he/she is, but when in doubt, add citation. Check capitalization on that title as well: a Google search for ("senior legislative aide") appears to return more lowercase than uppercase uses.

--In section "Washington State House of Representatives", subsection "Elections", need a citation for statement that Richard Curtis "resigned amid a sex scandal".

--The material in the first part of the "Political positions" paragraph needs a citation. I suspect that it was originally all sourced to VoteSmart, and then someone inserted another statement, breaking the connection between the earlier statements and the citation. This needs to be checked, and citation(s) placed on the material ending with "better known as Obamacare".

--In section "Electoral history", need citations for the data in the 2010 and 2012 tables

• 2c. No OR

--In section on 2010 campaign, sentence "Although she received support from state Republican leaders... Herrera stressed her independence..." looks like WP:SYNTH. The cited article doesn't make the "supported by prominent Republicans, but holds fast to her independence" point. Support from Republican leaders is OK; quote about independence is OK; connecting them with "Although..." is synthesis.

• 3. Broad coverage: addresses all main aspects; stays focused

--It's not clear whether the "Tenure" section for HB's stint in the state legislature satisfies this. We've got a description of her first bill, sourced to a GOP website; and of her vote on SB5967, sourced to a story about legislative action at about that time. I don't know whether these measures are widely regarded as the most significant of her legislative career, or whether they (especially 5967) were inserted because the inserting WP editor(s) regarded them as significant. I'd be more comfortable with something sourced to a major news source, looking over her entire state-Senate career and picking out issues X, Y, and Z as the salient ones. A candidate profile from her first run for US Congress might be a good place to look.

--Similar problem with the account of the 2010 election. The paragraph that treats the issues covered in the campaign (at this writing, the third paragraph in the section, beginning "Herrera pledged to provide solutions...") is sourced to two press releases by Herrera and a Columbian story dated July 23, 2010: so 3–4 months before the election. We don't have a neutral-sourced statement about which issues were the most discussed in the campaign, and we don't have anything on Heck's campaign. I'd suggest checking for news articles written immediately after the election, doing post-mortems on the various races, and seeing what they identified as the prinicpal issues and the turning points in the campaign.

--The 2012 election needs more coverage. There appears to be a story here that's not being told: in a district that'd recently been represented by a Democrat, and whose WP page describes it as one that can go to either party, the D's apparently nominated somebody too obscure to rate a WP article and let HB, who appears to be a fairly deep-red Republican, walk away with the seat. There's a see-also link to the article about the 2012 House elections in Wash., but the information isn't in there. We also need something about the issues in the primaries and in the general election.

• 4. NPOV

--In section "Political positions", sentence re. Paul Ryan budget needs rewriting: describes it as "changed Medicare to be a voucher-system", whereas source indicates that description as "voucher system" was used by opponents of the budget, and that Herrera Beutler disagreed with that characterization. Sentence also describes bill as lowering taxes for highest earners, but fails to mention HB's assertion that it would "close many loopholes enjoyed by those corporations".

• 5. Stable: basically, no edit wars

--Article history shows no major changes in about a month

• 6. Images

--Two images, which seems sufficient for article; both tagged with US copyright status (PD).

Not a GA issue, but there seems to be a lot of variation in the citation formatting. There are a few bare-URL citations, and some that only give the newspaper name and date. It'd be a better article if the citation formatting were standardized, and if all citations included (when possible) author names, article titles, periodical names, publication dates, etc.

Again, I hope that you'll keep up your efforts to push this article toward GA status. It'll take some work, but WP would be a better place if there were more good articles about currently active national politicians. Thanks for your work on it thus far--

Comments on first review scratchwork

• Just a passing comment, as I haven't given this a thorough read yet, but the discussion of her 2012 re-election seems a little skimpy; it would be interesting to know what the key issues were. Surely her opponent criticized her in some fashion that should be mentioned. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- I'll look at that.

Am I doing too much with the article itself? On the one hand, it seems inefficient to tell somebody else to do minor fixes that I can do myself. On the other, how much tweakage can I apply before I cease to be someone "who has not contributed significantly to the article"? Ammodramus (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question. My usual rule for myself is that all copyediting and formatting is fair game, unless I'm having to significantly rewrite most sentences of the article. And personally, I think editors who list action points like "this comma should be removed from this sentence" instead of just doing it themselves are jerks. Sometimes I cut excessive detail as well or add a bit of context (noting that a city is in the US, a person named is a future Secretary of State, or that Doctor Who is a television series about a time-travelling alien, etc.).

Anything that changes meaning or content, or any larger additions, I usually discuss with the nominator first unless there's an egregious hoax or BLP violation to deal with. So I probably wouldn't make an edit like your edit to remove SYNTH without checking in with the nominator, but you weren't wrong to do so, either (and I agree with you that that sentence needed to go). I've seen other reviewers make edits like that and I don't think it disqualifies you as long as you're not doing it too extensively.

By the way, I noticed we still haven't heard from Prairie Kid about the nomination. Assuming you don't consider this ready to pass as is, you might hold off on further work for a bit to see if s/he's still active. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I'd say this article is now trending toward failing. The issues you've identified so far appear to me that they would require a substantial rewrite to address, which is my personal threshold for recommending that an editor revise and resubmit at a later date. What's your take?

The decision is yours, so don't let me push you too hard either way. Under your guidance, PK could presumably get this to GA quality if both of you are willing to invest the time (particularly PK, since there's still substantial research to be done on those elections). I usually make these decisions by weighing the subjective importance of an article against how far it is from GA against the length of the total backlog; a longer-than-usual review helps PK and potentially gets us another GA, but then also delays the review of the next nomination. Ultimately it's a judgement call. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Belatedly, thanks for these comments-- I must've edited the page after you did, so it didn't show up on my watchlist. I appreciate all the help you're giving me on this. I'm also beginning to appreciate just what a commitment you made with your one-GAR-per-day goal. Now that I'm getting a feel for just how much work it is, I'm doubly grateful to you for undertaking it.

I checked User:PrairieKid's userpage and contribution history. There's a "semi-retired" tag up on the former, but there've still been a few recent edits.

I'm inclined to call this a fail, for the reason you suggest, and because there are a lot of areas that potentially require some serious research time to meet the broad-coverage criterion. Moreover, it'd probably require inserting a lot of material from new sources, which would necessitate a de novo copyvio check. However, if I leave the review at this point, will it look as though only the points I've noted need to be addressed before renomination? Should I include a note to the effect that I haven't done a complete review, and mention in a general way the things I haven't checked yet? (In particular, I haven't spot-checked citations for copyvio and for fidelity to sources.) Ammodramus (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This one was actually more work than most reviews would be, because it was trending toward failing without being a quickfail at first glance. (After reading your comments and looking myself, I agree that it's a fail now.) Many nominations I've reviewed, including both of yours that I did, needed little action besides spotchecks for accuracy and copyvio, and therefore only took 30-90 minutes.

So yes, I'd say fail this one. I'd suggest briefly summarizing your recommended actions for the nominator, and you're right that it's probably a good idea to point out that there were a few areas you didn't get a chance to check. And emphasize that you hope they'll revise and resubmit this one even though it hasn't passed this time.

And feel free to start a second review whenever you like, and pick anything you like from the queue (except 2012 Delhi gang rape, since that's an article I was involved in writing). Nice work with this review--I feel like your comments were thorough and on-target, and I'm really glad you're getting into reviewing-- Khazar2 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everything to date! I'll go through the GAN queue and see what I can find. This time, I'll try to find something easier... Ammodramus (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll both take a look at my comments on the review page, and allow me to continue the process. Without sounding proud or bias (although I am a little guilty of both), I really don't see this as even remotely close to deserving a quickfail. Please, reconsider. PrairieKid (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there, but let's keep the discussion centralized on that page after this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Retiring

I realize this is a terrible example for your "mentor" to set, but I'm leaving Wikipedia at least for a while, perhaps for good. I apologize for leaving halfway through this process. You seem ready to me to do GA reviews without my help--you're already doing better than most--so you should consider yourself graduated. If you want second opinions for a bit, though, you can always check in at WT:GAN or ask one of the other mentors here. Thanks for your work here, and good luck in future reviewing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this, the more so since you've been a great asset to the encyclopedia. I hope that your departure isn't the result of serious difficulties in your real-world life; that all goes well for you during your period of separation from WP; and that you eventually find yourself returning and continuing your valuable work. Good luck! Ammodramus (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Per agreement on your talkpage, Ammodramus, I'll be stepping in and assisting with further GAN questions and issues you may have. I look forward to working with you. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Second review

So what article are you thinking of taking on for your second GAN review? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about The Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser. I've written a GA about a small newspaper, and I see that you've done a GAR on one. Moreover, per the article the paper ceased publication in 1861, so I trust that there won't be much trouble with edit warring or with POV-pushing. A scan of the "References" section indicates that most of the citations are available online, which should facilitate checking up on those. Would that work for you? Ammodramus (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good choice. I tend to start reviews with a quick introduction like this, just to say hello and reserve the space, so that no one else starts the review while I'm reading it over. Feel free to go ahead and do that, if you like, and say as much or as little as you like. Then, once you've read the article carefully and come up with some issues and suggestions, you can either start the review there, or discuss it here first; it's up to you. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Second review scratchwork

• 1. Well-written

• Clear, concise prose; spelling and grammar OK

--The one-paragraph section "Notable stories" feels awkward. It begins with the publication of articles, then jumps back to the events described in the articles and works its way up to the articles' present, with a somewhat cumbersome "the aforementioned articles". The article as it stands also doesn't make it at all clear why a dispute over legal fees led to the publication of the articles. I'd suggest writing the section in chronological order and, per the broad-coverage GA criterion, expanding it based on the HistoricHampshire source. More about Jacob Green's escape, including his return to lead away still more slaves; Parsons Jr.'s attempt to snatch Green back, and his own apprehension by abolitionists; Col. Parsons's and Faulkner's expedition to Penna. to spring Parsons Jr.; some details about the legal-fees dispute; Col. Parsons's articles, including his charges that Faulkner had reaped a harvest of public sentiment for his pro-bono defense of Jr., then turned around and billed the Colonel.

• No copyright issues

--Spot-check of sources turns up no copyvios

• Complies with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, WP:WORDS

--The structure of the lead section feels a little random to me. I'd be inclined to break it into three short paragraphs: one with the most general information (place and years of publication; circulation); one about the Green affair, which should probably include the year, and which might also give a very brief description of Faulkner (e.g. "U.S. Representative Charles James Faulkner"), just so the reader knows why he's of interest; and one about Monroe, which could be ended with the paper's closing (and which might include his and Cooker's laying down the composing stick and taking up the sword, if we incorporate that into the body text). In rewriting, we should also make more use of pronouns, to avoid repeating the paper's name in several consecutive sentences.

• 2. Verifiable with no OR

• 2a. List of references, in accordance with WP:FNNR

--OK

• 2b. Inline citations for: direct quotes, statistics, published opinions, controversial statements, BLP issues

--OK

• 2c. No OR

--Article states that Wm. Parsons "no longer needed the newspaper for income" and sold it to Monroe & Cookus. The passage in quotes doesn't seem to be supported by the two sources cited. The LOC source only lists the publishers by date; Maxwell & Swisher state that "A few months' experience satisfied Mr. Parsons that he did not need the paper, so he in turn sold it..." with no mention of Parsons's specific motives for acquiring or selling the paper.

• 3. Broad coverage: addresses all main aspects; stays focused

--The name suggests that the paper might've been formed by the consolidation of two newspapers: the Virginia Argus and the Hampshire Advertiser. The fact that many sources call it only "Virginia Argus" seems to support this hypothesis. Was this the case? Did it start out as the Argus and then absorb the Advertiser? Did A. S. Trowbridge expand an existing Advertiser? If nothing like that happened, could I suggest adding something to the article's lead sentence like "often referred to simply as the Virginia Argus", just to make it clear that you're referring to the whole paper when you use the abbreviated form elsewhere in the article?

--Were publishers James Parsons and William Parsons related? Related to Col. Isaac Parsons and fugitive-slave-chasing nephew James Parsons, Jr.?

--The one-paragraph section on the Jacob Green event is too terse: see above for suggestions for expansion.

--Per Maxwell and Swisher, Monroe and Cooker "laid aside the pen and took up the sword"; presumably, on the Confederate side (per Monroe's WP article, at least). This should probably be noted in discussing the closing of the paper: at present, the article gives the impression that M&C were publishing right up to the time that the Yankees padlocked the place.

• 4. NPOV

--OK

• 5. Stable: basically, no edit wars

--OK

• 6. Images

--Two images, both with US public domain tags.

--Per WP:CAPTION, captions should be succinct; it's suggested that they be no more than three lines. Could these (particularly the Faulkner caption) be trimmed? Since Monroe and Faulkner are both identified and discussed in the text near the images, we don't need to describe them in detail in the captions. I'd personally be inclined to use their names alone, but brief descriptions wouldn't hurt.

• Some suggestions: not necessary for GA, but I think they'd improve the article:

--Is the intial "The" a part of the paper's name? At West Virginia State Archives, Miscellaneous Boxed Newspapers, I find it listed as "Virginia Argus"; other newspapers listed include "The Truth" and "The Evening Call", so they clearly don't automatically drop an initial "The".

--Would it be possible to find an image for the infobox? The paper's nameplate would be ideal; an image of a front page would also do.

--The first paragraph of the "History" section feels awkward. It begins "The Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser was established as a Democratic weekly newspaper in July 1850 in Romney by its founder, A. S. Trowbridge." "Established... by its founder" seems redundant, and the passive structure is cumbersome. How about something like "A. S. Trowbridge founded the Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser as a Democratic weekly newspaper in Romney in 1850"? A sentence like that seems to get off the ground more smoothly. If you've got a bit more biographic information about Trowbridge (e.g. the year in which he moved from N.O. to Romney), it might be even better to arrange this chronologically: move him to Romney, then found the paper, rather than found the paper and then flash back to his move to Romney.

--Since the "Notable stories" section concerns itself solely with the Green affair, I'd give it a more specific name. If we do that, we also don't have to justify the adjective "notable", which feels like editorializing.

Second review comments

Please feel free to add comments on the review draft here.

• Your copyediting was very helpful. It fixed a couple of issues I identified. In addition, image captions should only end with a full-stop (period) when those captions are complete sentences. I edited the captions to make them complete sentences. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, date parenthetics and location parenthetics are a very subtle sort of problem described at MOS:COMMA. For instance, when the text says "Trowbridge had relocated to Romney from New Orleans, Louisiana where he had been engaged in the profession of teaching", the word "Louisiana" is acting as a parenthetic, and so it needs a comma after it. Similarly, when the text says "articles published in the May 14 and May 21, 1857 issues", the year is acting as a parenthetic, and needs a comma after it. It's a rather complicated issue, and if you miss it, it's no biggie. But the rule of thumb is, whenever you have "[city], [state]" or "[city], [country]" or "[month] [day], [year]", you always need a comma after the construction, unless it ends a sentence. (And note that this doesn't apply for date formats that don't use internal commas, such as "21 May 1857".) I fixed these issues myself in a comma-related copy edit. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So, do you see any remaining areas where this article does not meet the GA criteria? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry-- I've just started on this. (I'm doing this in parallel to some real-world work, so I'm doing the review a bit at a time.) So far, I've only done a couple of things that struck me on a quick read-through.

What do you think of the lengths of the captions? MOS:CAPTIONS, linked from the GA criteria, emphasizes succinctness and suggests a maximum of three lines. I was going to suggest in the review that they be shortened to the name of the person portrayed: the rest of the information in the captions seems to be restatement of material that's in the article text. Ammodramus (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see! I'd misunderstood your scratchwork. It's quite thorough, and I'll leave comments below. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are my comments on your thorough scratchwork, above.

• Regarding criterion 1, your first note (about awkward phrasing) is correct, and it's probably worth mentioning, but I'm not sure it's necessary for GA status. You can suggest it, and it's likely the nominator will make the article better due to your suggestion... but if he doesn't want to change it, I wouldn't withhold GA status on this point alone, personally.
• Your second criterion 1 note is more important, I'd say. There is a definite clarity problem, and your suggestion is good.
• As for your 2c note, wow, good catch! The "for income" may well be OR.
• Regarding your note about the "The" in the name, I don't think it's a criterion 3 problem, although it may be worth asking the nominator.
• Your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th criterion 3 notes are all good points, and should be resolved one way or another.
• I don't think the Monroe caption is problematic, personally, although the Faulkner caption is indeed too lengthy. It would be fine to use just the names in the captions (without full-stops), or it would also be fine to have brief descriptive sentences—we reviewers shouldn't force one choice or the other on the article. (It's fine to give duplicate info in the body and captions.)

I'd say you're ready to put up a formal review! When you're done, you may want to put the review on hold by changing the status of the {{GA nominee}} template to "onhold" on Talk:The Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I greatly appreciate your help on this. As I said, I'm not as solid on the GA criteria as I could be, and I may be calling for more changes than the GA standards really require. I'll move some of the things you've pointed out to a final not-necessary-for-GA-but-it-might-improve-the-article section, then post this. Ammodramus (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you're handling the review superbly. (It helps that the nominator is diligent and friendly.) If you need anything, I'm available, but I think you've pretty much got this one in the bag. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur with you 100% about User:Caponer, who's put a lot of work into this article and is displaying commendable patience with my shortcomings as a new reviewer. I assume that you're watching the review page; if the Jacob Green section is rewritten to his and my satisfaction, should I go ahead and pass the article, or would you like to take a look at the final version first? Ammodramus (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've looked it over, and you can pass it whenever your comfortable with that section. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. It's been a pleasure working with Caponer on this, and I've greatly appreciated your oversight.

Would you like to watch over my work for at least one more GAR, or do you think I'm ready to go it on my own? My chief concern is that I might need someone to tell me when I'm being excessively picky-- that is, when I'm trying too hard to shoehorn my own ideas about good writing into the GA criteria. On the other hand, you're doing a lot of GA reviewing yourself, and time spent supervising me is time not spent on that. Let me know; I'd like to take a day or so for other things, then plunge into another review. Ammodramus (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I don't mind at all. I'd be glad to look over another one with you, though I have a suspicion you won't need all that much guidance. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- I'll try to start something soon. Ammodramus (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

One last note: I see you added the GA template and added the article to the right section, but the GA template should have a "topic" parameter rather than a "subtopic" parameter. I fixed that, so now the talk page says it "has been listed as a Social sciences and society good article", instead of just a good article. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing that. I just checked out the diff for your edit, so I'll know what to do next time. Ammodramus (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Third review

I'm going to try to do David Mirvish Gallery, which has been on the waiting list since September.

The biggest potential problem I see is that most of the sources cited don't appear to be available online. Ordinarily, I'd do a spot-check for copyvios and for fidelity to sources. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Ammodramus (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Offline sources may be a problem for the reviewer, but they're not a problem for the nomination; it's perfectly acceptable for an article to use only offline sources, and we reviewers just have to deal with it.

The main reason to spot-check is to make sure the nominator isn't just making stuff up, and isn't copying too closely from sources. If the nominator has had close-paraphrasing problems or related problems in the past, sometimes I will go to the library to look through whatever sources I can find to doublecheck the article's assertions. In this case, there are enough available sources that if there are consistent sourcing problems, it will probably be evident from just looking at the online sources. I also note that the nominator, Zanimum, is both an admin and a member of Wikimedia's Communications Committee, with no previous copyvio problem, so it is extremely unlikely that he is a problem plagiarist. So as long as you can spot-check the online sources, I wouldn't worry about it.

I do notice several other problems with the article, however, and I'll be curious to see what jumps out at you. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- I'd thought much the same about Zanimum, who's been at WP for considerably longer than I have. I've done my first run-through, below the table; I'll have to look through those initial notes and see what's really important for GA and what's unnecessary insistence on perfection, or merely my own taste in writing. Ammodramus (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Third review scratchwork

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.	I'm not sure if the pull-up quote conforms to WP:NFCCP; see point (1) below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	--The lead section seems too short for an article of this length; it should be rewritten after some of the other points in this review have been cleared up. --The layout isn't well organized. The entire body of the article is in one "History" section; the last third or so of the article consists of several short subsections that give the impression of having been written separately and added without regard to the overall organization of the article. --There are WP:REALTIME issues in the lead (I've marked it with a "When?" tag), and in the Mirvish+Gehry section.
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.	Looks good.
	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).	Article appears to be well sourced, with citations for almost every statement. There's one unsourced statement in the lead that I'm not sure about: "Artists at the gallery are best known for Color Field and Post-painterly Abstraction works." That "best known" feels like a statement of opinion; in any case, it'd be better with a citation, just to make it clear that it's not OR.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See preceding.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are a couple of large gaps in the coverage; see points 2–4 below. There are also lots of small holes in the coverage, none of which would kill a GA rating individually (and some of which may have to go unfilled for lack of sources), but which collectively make the article seem incomplete: see points 5–15 below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The one-sentence paragraph about the Royal Alexandria Theatre seems like a digression; Google Maps indicates that it's nowhere near Honest Ed's. "Anne Mirvish had another building..." also feels like a digression, especially if the David Mirvish Gallery was long-closed by then.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No very controversial issues covered. Article seems to cover Mirvish neutrally, without puffery.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article history shows no edit wars or the like.
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.	One image from Commons, tagged PD
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not a great photo, since the Victorian houses aren't really recognizable as such; but I don't find anything better in Commons, so this will do. The caption needs to be clearer: just where is Mirvish Village in the photo? Right side (across street from Ed's)? Beyond Ed's on same side of street? Both?
	7. Overall assessment.	This article definitely has GA potential. There are some issues that need to be addressed before it gets to that level, and some of them might require some further research. Happily, it sounds as though the materials are available. I'll put this on hold; and I won't be strict about the one-week limit if more time's necessary to gather information.

Review details

1. I'm not sure if the long pull-up quote is consistent with WP:NFCCP. It consists of eight sentences, which is stretching the limits of "brief". I think it'd be better to use it for a source in different places in the article. I could see quoting the single sentence about "paid to sit around reading" in discussing DM's decision to run a gallery; and we could use it as a source for statement(s) that DM tended to show the same artists, that he focused on abstract work, and that he didn't try to cover everything going on in the art world.
   If we use all or part of this quote, it should be checked for fidelity to source: "a successful paintings" looks like a typo.
2. We need more about the styles represented at the gallery. Right now, we've got a sentence in the lead naming two Wikilinked styles; we've got the pull-up quote non-specifically mentioning "an abstract manner", and we've got a bit near the time of the gallery's closing about the passage out of vogue of the styles that interested Mirvish. This needs more coverage in the body of the article: name the major styles that the gallery handled, briefly describe their arcs of fashionability, and perhaps mention some of the major practitioners who sold through the gallery. This strikes me as a significant hole in the article, and one that really needs to be addressed.
3. The article doesn't make clear the relationship between the commercial gallery and what I assume is Mirvish's personal collection. I assume that everything from the heading "Mirvish Collection" downward has to do with the latter. There are some decidedly ambiguous passages, e.g. "As of 1993, Mirvish's gallery was..." If the relationship is what I think it is, I'd be inclined to treat them in two entirely separate sections, and make it very clear that the proposed Mirvish+Gehry gallery isn't the lineal descendant of the Mirvish commercial gallery.
4. I think we've at once got too much and too little information about the artists whose work was shown. We've got bluelinked names, redlinked names, and plain-text names, but nothing about the significance of any of them. Rather than a comprehensive list of everyone who ever exhibited, which to me runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I'd suggest that we list (a) major artists whose careers were launched at the gallery, (b) artists so big that their displaying at the gallery was a major coup for it, and (c) artists well-known for working in one of the gallery's specialty styles ("Mirvish was an early exponent of Postneoantifauvism, displaying works by artists such as Bob Smith and Mary Jones...").
5. Elaborate a bit on Ed Mirvish being a "prominent discount retailer"; that bland description could apply to someone who ran a couple of K-Marts and led community Christmas toy drives, whereas I get the impression that Honest Ed's is something of a Toronto landmark. I'd be inclined to say something like "was the proprietor of Honest Ed's, a (quick description)". Right now, the only references to Honest Ed's in the article are a photo caption, which doesn't explain its significance, and a statement at the very end of the article stating that the family was selling it.
6. Early in the "Operation" section, Ed Mirvish "bought Victorian homes". A couple of points. First, about how many? Don't necessarily need a number, but a rough one; or some indicator like "a city block of". Second, although it's not specifically listed at WP:EUPHEMISM, the use of "home" to mean "house" seems to tend that way.
7. Was Anne's surname "Mirvish"? This article uses that name for her at one point; but the David Mirvish article calls her "Anne Lazare Macklin". We should probably use her full name on first mention. Was she David's mother? Since David seems to be the principal actor in the article, it might be better to describe her in relation to him: "David's mother" rather than "Ed's wife".
8. Were the senior Mirvishes signifiantly involved in art, as creators or as major patrons, during David's youth? If he grew up around the contemporary-art scene, the article should make note of it.
9. The sequence of events around the time of the DM Gallery's opening isn't entirely clear. Did David decide that he was going to run a gallery before the city blocked the demolition of the Victorian houses and the senior Mirvishes decided to launch an arts district, or did Ed and Anne's decision come first, and David then announced that he wanted to run a gallery therein? (This all appears to be happening at about the same time, so it may not be possible to get an exact chronology.) Unless chronological ordering demands otherwise, I'd be inclined to outline things as: Ed buys Victorians for parking lot; city blocks demolition; Ed and Anne decide to launch arts district; David opens one of the first galleries therein. That puts the business with the Victorians all together. Alternatively, we could skip the purchase of the Victorians until after David's decision to run a gallery, then use past participle: "Victorian houses, which Ed had bought intending to construct a parking lot..."
10. I assume that the gallery occupied one of the Victorian houses, but this should be made explicit.
11. The purpose of the paragraph beginning "During part of the 1960s..." isn't clear. If it's to discuss people who worked for the Mirvish Gallery and later did important art-world things on their own, then there should be an introductory sentence saying so; and we should give a little more detail about what the people did—there's nothing in the article to explain why Jane Corkin would be of interest, and the description "abstract artist Daniel Solomon" could fit anything from an untalented but enthusiastic Sunday painter to Picasso reborn.
12. It's not made clear on whose behalf Corkin was buying $3000 photographs. Did the gallery buy art and then sell it at a markup? Was she buying them as Mirvish's agent for Mirvish's personal collection? If she was buying them for herself, why was she worried about DM's reaction?
13. The sequence of events surrounding the gallery's closing and the York University arrangement isn't clear. Did the gallery close for a while and remove its stock, after which YU ran a galley out of the same building? Did YU take over the running of Mirvish's business for four months before its final closing? We should have the date at which Mirvish withdrew from the business.
14. If we have a source, we should probably give a date range for Mirvish's sitting on the Nat'l Gallery's board.
15. If Google Maps tells me true, the Mirvish+Gehry site is at a considerable distance from Mirvish Village. For non-Torontonians, this should be made clear in the article.

Third review comments

Please feel free to comment here. Ammodramus (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would add to your comments, that the lead does not adequately summarize all sections of the article, and that there are too many very-short paragraphs. Also, the names of sections are problematic. Should the "Operation" of the gallery a subsection of its "History", with "Mirvish+Gehry Toronto, with gallery" a part of "History" but not "Operation"? Why that organization? Should info on the "Mirvish Collection" really be its own section? How should the information be organized? Also, there is an open [when] tag that should be dealt with, along with the WP:REALTIME problems you noted. Finally, the extended quote may be too long; it is copyrighted, and we shouldn't use more copyrighted content that necessary to get the important points across. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- these are good points, and I should have caught them. I was probably reading too closely: concentrating on a word or a phrase at a time, when I should've stepped back for an overview as well.

The "when" tag is one that I added as I was copy-editing. Was that inappropriate in the course of a GAR? It seemed a quicker way to mark that problem passage than a description in the review.

I'll give the article another looking-over, this time from farther back. Thanks again for the advice and comments! Ammodramus (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you're about ready to post the review. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- I've just done so. I appreciate your mentoring here; it's definitely a better review for your input. Ammodramus (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, just to check in, I really like how the review is going. I'm glad the nominator is so hard-working, and your suggestions are great. It's good to see that you're using the green check-marks—it was getting hard to follow before, but now it's very clear. I don't think you have anything to worry about. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the check-in; it's good to hear that you think I'm on the right course. I'll second your shout-out to User:Zanimum, who's taken my suggestions in excellent spirit and has done a tremendous job of additional research.

I also thought that my previous review was getting difficult to read, which is why I went with the table this time. I think the green checks in the numbered list will make it easier to see what's been covered and what hasn't.

And thanks again for mentoring me on this. I appreciate your oversight, and your earlier comments did a great service in pointing out things that I hadn't thought of in my earlier version. Ammodramus (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been open for quite a while at this point. At some point, you'll have to either pass it or fail it due to inactivity. Do you think it's time to close it yet? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was planning to leave a message at Zanimum's talk page prodding him on the subject, especially now that the holidays are winding down. Thanks for keeping an eye on this! Ammodramus (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

At the reviewer's discretion, it's fine to keep a review like this open much longer than usual, especially when there are extenuating circumstances (holidays, weather), and when the nominator has been so diligent in responding to reviewer suggestions. At some point you may want to just close the review and encourage the nominator to resubmit whenever the issues are taken care of, but that's really up to you.

I'm going to be taking a wikibreak very soon, where I'll be mostly-unavailable for several weeks. I'll try to check in on this every so often. If you have questions, ping me on my talkpage and I'll be more likely to see them. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the mentoring so far. I appreciate your keeping an eye on this; but if you're going to be away, I'm reasonably comfortable with finishing this up myself, especially since Zanimum's been so receptive to my suggestions.

Hope that the Wikibreak means that you're doing something enjoyable and interesting. Good luck with whatever it may involve! Ammodramus (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that the review has ended. Because of your experience and thoroughness in the GA reviews I've witnessed, I am now graduating you as a fully-vetted GA reviewer. May your days on the wiki be pleasurable ones. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Again, I very much appreciate your helping me through this. Good luck with your continuing Wikiventures. Ammodramus (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)