Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/RainCity471

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status: Abandoned

Date Started: 13 July 2013

Date Ended: May 7, 2014

Recruiter: Gilderien

Hi Jackc143, I'm Gilderien. To get started, are there any particular types of articles you are interested in reviewing or writing or whatever else? Do you have any questions about the review process before we start? The key page for GA reviews is this one, which you should read and understand. This essay is also quite useful. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for taking me on! I play the piano but I don't really have any preference as to what I review. The only question I have at the moment about reviews is: how do you tell how comprehensive an article is? I understand that GAs just have to be '"broad", not FA's "comprehensiveness", but how is it worked out? If there is any way to work it out?
Thanks, Jackc143 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cool, so do I :) There aren't any hard-and-fast rules about how comprehensive an article has to be: the only one of my nominations that this has come up in was Talk:Mont Aiguille/GA1. Basically if you can think of a major facet of a topic that has been omitted, it isn't broad enough - I recently held up Talk:Parsley Peel/GA1 because there was no information on his death, for example.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see. That's all my questions answered - but I'll probably have more soon. Jackc143 (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I'm going to give you a short quiz. If you get 80% or higher, I shall model a review for you. Please answer in the spaces provided.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark each answer out of two.
  • means good, no error and perhaps only a slight omission.
  • means mostly there, partly wrong or clear omission.
  • means mostly or entirely wrong.
To pass, you need 34 or more marks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz

[edit]

Q1: Why will Paris, my latest GA, cease to be a Good Article?

A: My best guess would be it's undergoing a lot of content changes including an edit war.
My original answer was going to include it being promoted to FA status, but as I was specific and an edit war has arisen I suppose this is far the most likely outcome.

Q2: Can I pass an article if there are links which don't work?

A: Yes, there is no restriction that there must be no dead links in a GA provided the links are not bare URLs.
Well done, this is a common error.

Q3: If I want to include a quote from a well-known author about the place I'm writing about, is it acceptable for me to add the book (perhaps in a {{Cite book}} template) to a bibliography section in the references?

A: No, a work of fiction should not be put in (implying use) the biblography (what if the author's making everything up?). Use an inline citation for the quote.
Pretty good, although as a minor point the book would go in the bibliography if the author was using shortened footnotes style.

Q4: When might an article not be "stable"?

A: Per WP:GA?#cite_note-5, an article might not be stable due to an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Articles can also be unstable due to extensive good faith edits, these should be put on hold per WP:GA?#cite_note-5.
Good.

Q5: What is the perfect length for a GA?

A: There isn't one. It depends what there is to write about the subject, not how long the article is.
Good. Can every article become a GA?

Q6: If you expanded, say, Granite Peak (Montana) by 5xs, could you also nominate it for GA?

A: It depends what you put in it. If it becomes broad and passes all the GA criteria, then yes, but if it is expanded like this then no.
Are you saying that sometimes DYK expansions aren’t always as good as they’re made out to be? ;-)
No, I just wanted to make my point that articles should be considered for GA based on what they contain, not how long they are. I get your point though.
Yes, although if it were to be nominated during the expansion the review would need to be put off until the article was stable again.

Q7: Zennor Head is a GA. Can I add a PD-UK photo of a tin mine taken in 1926 to the article?

A: Probably not, unless the tin mine is directly related to Zennor Head (from a quick glance at the article I can't see how a tin mine would be closely related to it).
The article says "Zennor Head was mined extensively for copper and tin in the 19th century". How does this affect your answer?
In that case, a PD photo of a tin mine probably would be appropriate for the article, as long as:
  • It is of a tin mine on/near Zennor Head, not in Inverness.
  • It is relevant to the size and content of the article, i.e not a huge bit about the tin mine and barely anything on the actual subject.
Technically, it does not have a valid license - normally PD images would be ok but you would need to add a PD-US tag first because that's where our material is hosted.

Q8: Does it matter if the article mixes US and British spellings?

A: No as compliance with MOS:ENGVAR is not required. However, I would strongly recommend that English varieties are kept consistent in any article.
(compliance with MOS:ENGVAR not needed per WP:GA? Jackc143 (talk))
as per WP:WGN, "spelling and grammar follow an established system, even if you use a different variety of English" - this means that the article must be internally consistent in its spelling, but not necessarily using the "right" one - York could still be a GA even if it were written in en-us, and so different spellings would be treated as mistakes.

Q9: Could I create a Good Article on the 2012 Olympic Games? What about the 2014 Winter Olympics?

A: You can create an article on the 2012 Olympic Games (incidentally, its currently B-class). You can't have a good article on the 2014 Winter Olympics as articles about future events are inherently unstable: information is subject to change without notice (the 2014 Winter Olympics article's currently start-class).
All good.

Q10: Can one write a Good Article if there are no english language sources available?

A: There is no restriction that articles with no English sources cannot be GA/FA. In order to write a quality article, I would advise being able to speak the foreign language in the sources, as machine translations may not be good enough.
Correct, and sensible suggestion.

Q11: How could you determine whether, say, General Relativity is cited adequately?

A: The GA critera state that inline citations should be provided for all "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". As General Relativity is a science article, it should follow the scientific citation guidelines (per WP:GA?).
Good, and good pickup of WP:SCG.

Q12: Is an article "stable" if it keeps on getting vandalised?

A: Yes, per WP:GA?#cite_note-5

Q13: What about if it was the subject of current litigation to the WMF?

A: No, being the subject of ongoing litigation probably means the article is either a copy-vio or a BLP-vio. Content may be removed without warning. GA-ing the article could also be seen as endorsement of the copy-vio or BLP-vio.
CORRECTION: Copy-vios cannot be good articles but other legal proceedings do not affect the GA process, per WP:GACN#Beyond the scope Jackc143 (talk)
- good catch.

Q14: Does it matter if the subject is non-notable when reviewing?

A: No, also per WP:GACN#Beyond the scope.
Correct.

Q15: If there are multiple different viewpoints on something, should we present them all as equally valid, or prioritise some over others?

A: More should be written about major viewpoints and less about minorities. The more reliable sources talking about a viewpoint, generally the "more major" it is if you'll excuse the very bad grammar.
Although this mark was borderline very good, you also have to take into account other factors, such as the age of the sources, relevance and citations of it, reputation of authors and a whole host of other things, including whether they are critiqueing or promoting a POV - there is plenty in the literature about Homeopathy, but all serious scientists regard it as nonsense.

Q16: Can I have a sentence ending [12][3][2][7][6] or should it be [2][3][6][7][12]?

A: I haven't been able to find any guideline on this, however having the footnote numbers in the wrong order just looks weird. If I found something like this in an article I would just go and fix it per the GAN instructions (where reviewers are encouraged to fix minor problems in articles).
CORRECTION: The footnotes do not need to be in numerical order per WP:GACN. Jackc143 (talk)
But yes, I think as reviewer one might as well make these minor changes.

Q17: Can you accept sources "in good faith"? Why/Why not?

A: Per WP:GACN, reviewers need to check at least a substantial proportion of the sources to make sure they match the content of the article. The nominator may have accepted sources in good faith themselves.
Yes, although if a nominator hasn't checked their sources ...

Q18: Can I use any image, as long as it is either CC-BY-SA (or similar) or is already on WP with a non-free fair use rationale?

A: The image must be relevant to the article. It's no good adding this picture to this article.
Good. Can in principle any relevant image already on WP be used?
Yes, provided that it is either released under a free license (where it should be uploaded to Commons), or hosted on Wikipedia with a valid non-free use rationale.
I'm going to be ultra-pedantic on this one and say that it is not quite good enough for an image to have a valid fair-use rationale - to newly include it in an article one must write a new rationale for the proposed article first, the first one cannot be duplicated.

Q19: Do I require images?

A: The GA criteria state that GAs should be "illustrated, if possible, with images". Per WP:GA?#cite_note-7, images should be provided if available with a suitable license.
CLARIFICATION: WP:GA?#cite-note-7 says if relevant images with a suitable copyright license are available they should be provided. However, the presence of images itself is not a requirement.
All good.

Q20: I have just created a new article, List of animals with fictional diplomas. What do I have to do to make sure it meets the GA criteria?

A: Lists cannot meet GA criteria, per WP:GA?#What cannot be a good article?. The only way to get a list to GA standard would be to re-write it into prose, otherwise it can be nominated at WP:FL
In principle that shouldn't be possible, but I will mark this as correct given that per this discussion it appears that "prose" lists have in the past been passed.

Q21: If there are no images in an article you are working on, but you find a Creative Commons licensed CC-BY-NC image, should you upload it and include it to help it pass GA?

A: You can, as long as it has a valid non-free use rationale. CC-BY-NC is defined as non-free content by Wikipedia as it is not a "free culture" license. Therefore, it is subject to the same restrictions as copyrighted content and must be hosted locally on Wikipedia.
Good answer, this was (one of) the trick question.

Model review

[edit]

By my reckoning, that gives you 37/42, or 88%! Congratulations. Now the next stage involves me modelling a GA review, and I'll transclude it here so you can ask questions about what I am doing. I was just going to pick one and begin reviewing it, but I think it would be more interesting and relevant if you were to pick it, so name an article currently listed on WP:GAN and I shall ask the nominator if they are ok with it being reviewed like this .--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will it be OK if I don't pick one yet cause I'm away for tommorow and monday? Also, I'm changing username to RainCity471 and because of that I have to clear up my userspace so the crats don't moan about WP:UP. Sorry, Jackc143 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Would you like me to move this page when you have had you username changed?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's ok with you. Thanks! Jackc143 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My rename won't be complete this weekend: too much stuff to clear up! I'll pick an article as soon as I'm back and will sort out the rename next week as well. Sorry. Jackc143 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ok with you and the nom I could try 2012 Christmas tornado outbreak. The refs are all online, which is good since my local library's in an office block at the moment... Jackc143 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked, and the nom is fine with me reviewing it ... I'll begin the review soon and explain everything to you as I go along.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! Jackc143 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Christmas tornado outbreak/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Initial Thoughts

[edit]

I first read through the article and see if there is anything that jumps out at me, and note it down to be fixed. I also check to see if any references are dead. For example:

  • All the kalb.com and wktg.com references are dead.
  • File:McNeill Tornado.png is missing.
  • The table requires inline citations for each row.
  • All the maximum width column is empty - populate or remove.

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell you that when I get time, I will look at getting those citations done. I will do some right now. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, could you tick ({{Done}}) when you have addressed my individual points :) --Gilderien Chat|Contributions 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since over a week has passed, and most of these issues have not been addressed, and the nominator has been active elsewhere, I am failing this review. --Gilderien Chat|Contributions 05:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately I have had to fail this nomination. Please select another GAN that you would like me to review :) Sorry about this...--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 05:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I'll find another one soon.
About your comments:
  • I see what you mean about the dead links, but they're not bare URLs so that's fine isn't it? Or am I missing something (probably)
  • There are some citations at the end of each row of the table. I think they have stats in as well.
  • I see the missing file and empty coloumn. I can't find anything on these in WP:GA?.
Sorry if I'm wrong. RainCity471 (Jackc143) [talk] 10:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right to query, but here are my reasons:
  • You are correct that dead links are allowed in Good Articles, but my concern was per WP:GACN in that because a substantial quantity of the sources were inaccesible, I could not verify a substantial quantity of information nor accept in good faith that there was no close paraphrasing.
  • My second point was addressed, which I saw although it was not noted at the review.
  • The empty column gave a clear indication of the article being a work in process. Whilst images are not required, if available they should be used. Having a no-longer available one indicates that images probably are available, but I cannot check its copyright status not knowing where the image is.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Probably the best option in relation to dead links is just to WebCite everything.
New review: Lufthansa Flight 615? RainCity471talk 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay but I was really busy for over a week
That should be ok, although I'm climbing Mount Whitney imminently. I shall be back in a few days.--Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 16:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Have a nice time! RainCity471talk 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lufthansa Flight 615/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]
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. Narrative is well-presented and very readable.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes
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. Yes
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). Yes
2c. it contains no original research. Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No concerns
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes
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. Yes
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. All issues have been addressed; passed

Hello FoxyOrange, I apologise for the two-month delay between nomination and review for your article. I find this article to be of high quality, with verifiable sources that are reliably used.

This that need to be fixed before the article is promoted:

  • "On 5 September 1972, during the ...subsequently arrested and held in pre-trial custody." lacks a source
  • I believe "of Palestinian political violence " to be potentially inflammatory. This could be remedied by rephrased as "of political violence by a Palestinian terrorist group". This relates to the NPOV criteria of the GA review.
  • Lede needs to be expanded with a summary of the actual event.

Some small other comments:

  • "On 29 October 1972 (a Sunday), a Lufthansa aircraft was hijacked: " I suggest you add "was hijacked at [x]" or "was hijacked en route between [x] and [y]", as this information
  • "If true, this would establish that indeed the release of the prisoners had been planned, rather than having them stand trial in Germany." lacks a source
  • "In a large scale covert operation dubbed Wrath of God, Israel would subsequently aim at them being tracked down and liquidated." lacks a source
  • It is confusing to read the multiple names for each of the planes. Suggest names be standardised as "the hijacked [Boeing/Luthansa/plane/neither]" and "The plane carrying Cullman" for clarity and readability.
  • "On that day, the " for clarity, suggest "Originating at [x], the flight was delayed at Beirut airport..."
  • "if the members of Black September would not be released from the German prison." is uncited.
  • "chairman Herbert Culmann ": chairman of what...?
  • "The HS.125 left " for clarity: "the HS 125 carrying Culmann..."
  • "the hijacked Boeing also landed ": "the hijacked plane landed at..."
  • "first Black September member arrived " : "was transported to" (as I am guessing this was involuntary)
  • "the Lufthansa plane " -> "the hijacked plane"
  • "Twenty minutes after the Condor jet" jet -> plane
  • "prevented the Lufthansa jet " -> "the hijacked Lufthansa" Same again for "thus allowing the Lufthansa jet"

I again apologise for the long delay, and await your comment. LT910001 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by nominator

[edit]

Dear LT910001, thanks for your review. I won't be able to work on the article before Friday, so here are just a few quick remarks.

  • I very much appreciate you having pointed out the confusing identifications I used for the different aircraft. I fully get your point, and will do my very best to resolve the issue.
Thanks. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the short lead section, I guess this will become a bit harder. I quite like the current one (basically, what happened was that a Lufthansa jet was hijacked, the attackers demanded some prisoners be released, their demands were accepted, Germany was subsequently criticised). But I also can understand that more information about the course of actual hijacking may be desirable already in the lede, so again I will do as suggested.
  • Then, the part about the "Palestinian political violence". Indeed, I was unsure which word to use here, because I wanted to omit the possibly loaded "terrorism". I therefore chose the exact wording of the respective Wikipedia article title. But now, with you having suggested "political violence by a Palestinian terrorist group", couldn't I use "an act of terrorism committed by a Palestinian group" instead and scrap the cumbersome "political violence" altogether?
A good suggestion. I try and use the words of the article if I am proposing a change. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And last but not least, about the missing source at "On 5 September 1972, during the ...subsequently arrested and held in pre-trial custody." Is this really necessary? I mean, this is a very basic summary of the Munich massacre; can't this be considered common knowledge? Of course, I will happily chose from virtually any comprehensive source about the Munich massacre, but I have to admit that I will feel somewhat silly when adding a source just for the sake of having one.
Yes, a source is necessary as this is not the lede. Also considering the diverse range of users of Wikipedia, this may not be common knowledge for all and sundry. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the work you put on the review. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). I presume you have translated the majority of the information in this article from the German (just guessing based on the sources). If that is the case, thanks for helping expand the English Wikipedia. I will await your changes. LT910001 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Dear LT910001, I've just edited the article in accordance with your suggestions (at least, I hope so): It now features a rewritten, longer lead section (including a different approach to the "Palestinian violence" problem), and a more consistent naming of the different aircraft. How do you like it?

Also, I would like to apologise for that unprofessional comment about feeling "silly when adding a source just for the sake of having one". On the contrary, the search for a suitable source turned out to be quite beneficial, as it let me take another look at the other references, extracting some more content to be used in the article. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for being so polite! On occasion these GA reviews feel like I'm juggling firebrands. LT910001 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is much better and has improved in spades. The timeline is now very clear. I have a few small issues, particularly pertaining to NPOV, that remain, but the article is now much more readable. I have made changes to the GA table above to reflect this. LT910001 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nine citizens of unspecified Arab countries" -> any way to find out where they came from? I find it odd that the Arabic passengers get lumped together but the Europeans get separate mentions.
  • For clarity, reword "On that day, the flight was delayed by around one hour: Originally scheduled to depart Beirut at 05:45,[8] take-off took place only at 07:01." to "Departure from Beirut was delayed by about one hour. Originally scheduled to depart at ..."  Done
  • Again, I take issue with "two Arab passengers" as "Arab" is a class description. It would be very reasonable to say "two Egyptian passengers" but if we were to substitute "two Western passengers threatened" there may be an underlying POV presented.
  • "This put the German side " -> "This put the Germans" (remove 'side')  Done
  • In retrospect, "The hijacking" section would benefit from an image, although this is certainly not necessary from the GA perspective.  no need
  • Again, "(as well as in other Arab countries)," I think it would be better to specify the countries rather than lump them together.
Concerning the "passengers of unspecified Arab countries:" There are many sources supporting the fact that there were 7 crew and 13 passengers on board, but I found only one reference breaking down some nationalities: [1], a 2006 article by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which in turn attributes this piece of information to an article published by Lebanese newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour on 30 October 1972. I'm recalling that I have read somewhere that on the day following the hijacking, Lufthansa sent an airplane to Tripolis to pick up the "Western" hostages, so it seems somewhat logical that their nationalities are known, whilst the remaining passengers were simply referred to as "Arabs". At that time (1972), airport security was virtually non-existent compared to today's standards, and I'm not sure if passenger listings were mandatory. Due to the hijackers of Flight 615 having gone into hiding in Libya, their identity has never been revealed. Of course, with the evidence being so thin, it might be better to remove the passengers' nationalities altogether.
The situation with the "reactions from Arab countries" is quite similar: All sources I found use this generic term without further specification. Again per the FAZ article: "The Libyan authorities let the terrorists go into hiding. In the Arab world, they were celebrated as heroes." And according to a Zeit article from 3 November 1972 ([2]): "In the Arab world, the liberation has been celebrated as an act of heroism. The unanimous praise prompted chancellor Brandt to a serious warning: The Arab governments should learn to accept that with such actions, they do not serve their interests." So, not even the chancellor cared to distinguish the countries, but lumped them all together. The documentary One Day in September has imaginery of such celebrations, if I recall correctly accompanied by a commentary like "all over the Arab world..."--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Would we be able to compromise by replacing "unspecified" with "unknown" and "Arab" with "Middle Eastern?" (wikilinked)? I feel that Middle Eastern is less pejorative than "Arab". LT910001 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a difference between Arab world and Middle East. Libya (the only clearly identified country where such celebrations took place), is not part of the Middle East. So, I could write "at a number of places in North Africa and the Middle East" or "in Libya and other countries of the region".--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are indeed correct, that is a good suggestion. LT910001 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

With the changes above being made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry to have kept you waiting, but I believe you are ready to review a GA on your own. If you wish to pick an outstanding article, and translude the review here, I will provide guidance and comments.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine about the wait (I've done some copyediting, joined a wikiproject and broken a high-use template). The model review I've picked will be/is transcluded below. RainCity471 (whack!) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (1st)

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Saengerfest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RainCity471 (talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Ok, so over the next few days I'll review (hopefully). I can't do a lot of editing during weekdays (too much homework) and will be away from the 16th to the 21st of November.

The article does not have any cleanup tags, and in my opinion looks reasonable in relation to the criteria. It looks like a lot of work has been put into it, and I look forward to reviewing it. RainCity471(whack!) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly commenting on this article in relation to the GA criteria. There are some things I'm pointing out that are not required for GA, but could be implemented to get the article to a better state; I'll note this when I mention them. You don't need to implement the beyond-GA changes at all if you feel they are a mis-judgment or incorrect. If you think I've made an incorrect comment or judgement, please let me know—you're probably right! RainCity471 (whack!) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now going through carefully and nit-picking at minor bits of prose in the article body; these comments will mostly be related to criterion 1 (well-written). I'll try to fix ones that don't need any ref checking myself. I'll also start commenting on verifiability and so on. RainCity471 (whack!) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer note: prose check completed; now undergoing reference verification
I'm afriad I'm on a Wikibreak until the 21st at the earliest (I have to go earlier than I thought I would). I've dropped a note at WT:GAN asking if someone could finish this review for me. I'm really sorry about this, and good luck with the article. Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 23:18, 9 November 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. Now undergoing detailed checking. All fine after some tweaking by both of us. No suspicion of copyright problems, as the text looks in a typical Wikipedia style and was added over several edits.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Fairly confident on this, though I will check soon. (The fiction and list incorporation guidelines do not apply to this article.)
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. The references layout look fine, although I have not yet done a detailed check on sources as required.
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). There are many inline citations, although I will do a detailed check soon. I would recommend archiving the web urls with WebCite (go to http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url=(WEB_ADDRESS)&email=(EMAIL_ADDRESS), replacing (WEB_ADDRESS) with the website address and (EMAIL_ADRESS) with a valid email). As the urls are not bare, this isn't required for GA but it would help with verifiability in the future.
2c. it contains no original research. Nothing that sticks out, although I will be more confident after I've completed reference verification.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The largest section is the North America history, and the "Current events" section seems to be pretty short compared to it. I do have experience in classical music but I'm not familiar with singing, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll ask for a second opinion when the rest of the review's mostly done.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Over-detail does not appear to be a problem.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Looks ok, though I have yet to do a complete read-through. I'm a bit concerned that the article focuses mostly on Saengerfests in north America though. As Maile has pointed out, this is more a sourcing problem. I'll do a full read through when I get the chance.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Has settled down after expansion and does not appear to have had edit wars.
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. All fine. In my opinion, maybe the Liederkranz Quartettverein image could go to the Current events section to ease the big block of text after the start of the article, but this is not required for GA.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good. The archive photo (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06264, Wien, Umzug zum Sängerbund-Fest.jpg) seems to have a caption/id numbers at the bottom of it; I might crop that off and put it on the file page instead. This isn't required for GA either.
7. Overall assessment.

Here are some phrases I think could be put a bit better:

  • "The closing day of the fest was full of pomp and circumstance with a parade and speeches.[28]" in the North America section.
I'm glad you mentioned this, because I had to correct a typo on the inline citation page numbers. I might not have otherwise caught that. However, given the final day of the event, "celebratory" just doesn't quite convey it, either. My American dictionary describes "pomp and circumstance" as "a splendid celebration with ceremony and fuss" - to my way of thinking, it was precisely pomp and circumstance. But you may differ. Here's the verbatim description (and their punctuation) of that day from the source:
"Friday, September 1, was the closing day of the Saengerfest. Early in the morning an immense concourse of people, numbering in many thousands, assembled at the west front of the Capitol. The different singing societies with their banners waving and bands playing, met at that point, and thence a grand procession was formed for a picnic in the City Park, in the southern part of the City. From a large platform erected on the grounds, speeches were made by Dr. J. Eberhardt, of Wheeling, in German, and R.B. Warden, of Columbus, in English. Then followed a superb banquet, songs, toasts, speeches, and general hilarity. In the evening, after the distribution of the prizes awarded to the different societies, a grand ball took place at Wenger and Zettler's halls, so as to unite them as one. Capacious as they were, these halls were densely crowded. Music and dancing formed the grand finale of the festival."— Maile (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean; "pomp and circumstance" is more of a description not a claim. Now I think more carefully I think the bit I wasn't sure about was "full of". I'm a bit short of time but I'll think about it.
I took out the words "a parade", because I'm not sure that actually happened. How about if we compromise between your wording and mine. "The closing day was celebrated with pomp and circumstance." Or something like that. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'll be good. Thanks! RainCity471 (whack!) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noun vs. verb? Perhaps I was not clear in that wording. In my mind, "singing groups as an expression for social reform" is the same as "singing groups as vehicle for social reform". It (the singing groups) was something they used to help achieve a result. It just sounds better to me to say an "an expression" rather than "a vehicle".— Maile (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean; I've just done a bit of grammar tweaking (diff) RainCity471 (whack!) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to neutrality and your concern that it is mostly focused on North America, this is what I have been able to reference. It's not so much a lack of neutrality as it is a lack of non-American sources. i.e., in one sentence in the section for Europe, it is mentioned that the saengerfest also spread to Australia via churches. I would have loved to have done a section on Australia, but was unable to find sources available to me. I am located in the United States. Perhaps outside the US, sources are available. Probably many in the German language in Europe. I just don't have that available to me.— Maile (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point; your argument fits with the criteria that the article "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each". I have to do a bit of checking myself, but if most of the refs are north American, then that means the north American viewpoint is probably more significant. RainCity471 (whack!) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it helps balance it a little bit, I have no problem eliminating the "Current events" section. I'm not wedded to that section, because it's not all that detailed. But to prevent that elimination from being immediately reverted by someone else, I would suggest merging it within the body of the rest of North America. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping the Current events section. The info's relavent and useful so there's no reason to remove it. RainCity471 (whack!) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who made numerous journeys through Germany beginning in 1819 to encourage the formation of male singing groups for the purpose of social reform.[3]" → "who made numerous journeys across Germany from 1819 to encourage the formation of male singing groups for social reform"?
Yes, I like this, and I've made the change. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with hundreds or thousands of vocalists were popular with the masses" → "with hundreds or thousands of vocalists were popular with many people"?
Go ahead and be picky. I think you're supposed to. However "the masses" is a phrase synonymous with "the common people". It does not mean "many people", but refers to the great mass of common people. It's a standard phrase used in writing, journalism, television reporting, political speeches, etc.— Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. I agree with you that the masses is just a normal term; I think I mispercive it from the way I usually see it written. Thanks for all your comments, RainCity471 (whack!) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be the difference between the way Americans use English language phrases and how it's used in the U.K.— Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. Thanks, RainCity471 (whack!) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christian church organizations known as Christlicher sängerbund"
I don't understand what you're saying here. "Christlicher sängerbund" is how those specific groups were/are named in Europe, and the exact term used in the source. It is not all Christian church choir organizations, but an organization that existed within some Christian churches who preferred using the German spelling. I guess it's like some modern churches adopted the name "the Hallelujah choir" because they have a specific style of music, and others just say "the church choir" when they used standard hymnals.— Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about that: it's a mistake! I meant to remove that bit before I saved but I forgot! Sorry, RainCity471 (whack!) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the article is titled Saengerfest, it says sängerfest in the actual content. I believe this isn't required for GA, but it probably would be worth sorting out. Should the article be moved or the sängerfests changed to saengerfest? RainCity471 (whack!) 20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is OK the way it is, but thank you for noticing. You have a good eye. Whoever originally created the article on English wikipedia used anglicized spelling, which is fine The first sentence of the lead explains the different spelling. The rule of thumb at Wikipedia is to go with the spelling in the sources, which is sängerfest, and be consistent in the text of the article. Where it would be of concern is if the article went back and forth on the spelling. I understand your concern, but it's fine. I would not recommend either moving the article, which is likely to cause move-and-revert wars, or change sängerfest, because is aligns with the sourcing.— Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thanks for pointing that out. This isn't covered by the GA criteria anyway, so i was being very fussy. RainCity471 (whack!) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine. You're doing a good job. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. RainCity471 (whack!) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At their peak, the sängerfests were prestige events" and "So popular were these sängerfests among the public"
Both phrases removed.— Maile (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5,000 singers from more than a hundred sängerbunds"
Can you access Page 22? The exact phrase is "5,000 singers representing more than a hundred organizations in 40 cities." — Maile (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if there was an exact number, but if there isn't then it doesn't matter. I couldn't access the page as of the time I previously commented; it said something like "either you have reached a page unavailable for viewing, or you have reached your viewing limit for this book".
I reworded this a bit and added a secondary source. I didn't even know if this little story was wanted in the article, but it was a funny story so I gave it a shot. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I guess there aren't any daughter articles that would cover it, it probably would fit here. It did get into the NYT, so it's probably worth a mention. RainCity471 (whack!) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There as a (November 11th) request for someone to finish this review. It looks like nobody has volunteered. I'd be happy to do it and will. I'll wait a day or 2 for comments in case I have misunderstood the situation. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to start a new review to get it back into the system. Talk:Saengerfest/GA2 North8000 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm on wikibreak now/immenently. Since I'm not sure if you're free at the moment, I've dropped a note at WT:GAN asking for someone to complete the review. Thanks, RainCity471 (whack!) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trout Self-trout: That was the stupidest thing I've done so far on wiki. I could have just waited a few days until I was back. RainCity471 (whack!) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Recruitment_Centre/Recruiter_Central/Archives/RainCity471&oldid=1142558471"