Thanks for your interest in becoming a GA reviewer! I see that you're relatively new to Wikipedia, but you've been learning quite quickly, and I've been impressed with the progress you've been making at Gandhi-related articles in particular. If you want to see the very best Wikipedia has to offer, look through Wikipedia:Featured articles. That will give a good idea of the ideal way an article can look, though an article doesn't have to be that perfect to qualify for GA status. So how good does an article have to get before in can be promoted to "Good Article" status? I'll cover that in Step One, below.
Thanks to you for seeing me as a potential GA reviewer. It's been about two months since I created my account so yes I am a new member of Wikipedia community. Thanks again for your motivating words and I'm glad that my little contribution could bring me the reward of your good company and mentorship. I've been referring to the FAs of Wikipedia quite frequently, using them as a model to strive for while working on a particular topic. However the most confusing aspect of judging or reviewing an article for me would be the notion of "that perfect" and it would be my aim to clearly understand the transition zone between GA and FA. When can we say that a particular article has crossed the GA checkpoint?
The official criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria (often abbreviate WP:GA?), and it's essential that you fully understand them. I go back and check those criteria every time I review a GA candidate article. It's also extremely useful to read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not (abbreviated WP:GACN), to see how to apply these criteria in practice, and to learn about common traps that reviewers could fall into. Finally, the guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (WP:RGA) can tell you even more about the process. So please read all three, but the most important one to fully understand is WP:GA?.
When you've read all three pages, and reread the criteria, please list any questions or comments you have below. Is anything unclear? Do any of the criteria surprise you? Do you think your own candidate (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) fulfills these criteria?
I am writing my doubts against the concerned sections for clarity. However I would be more verbose than needed in order to make it easy for you to find faults in my current approach and way of thinking.
Well-written (a): The requirement that "the prose is clear and concise" provides a lot of room for choice of style. As a contributor I wish to know whether it's appropriate to use the "clear and concise" style of reputed media e.g. The BBC News. If we notice the sentence construction, the structure of the prose, the size of the paragraphs, etc. on The BBC News it is, in my opinion, the best example of "clear and concise" metric. But is it okay to use this style of writing on Wikipedia?
Well-written 1(a): Another doubt is about the structure of individual sections. I normally use the standard layout of writing for the sections i.e. an introduction, a body and a conclusion which, again I believe, renders clarity to sections and improves readability. However while going through the FAs I noticed it may not be the case always or may be I am mistaken. Based on your experience as a reviewer could you please suggest the parameters generally used to measure clarity?
Well-written 1(a): Further the concise part is also dependent on the subject matter of the topic I guess. After going through the FAs I came across articles varying from less than 1000 words to few touching the 4000 mark. So 'conciseness' depends on the topic and also the amount of research the contributor has done on the topic. However, I wish to know if there is some kind of a rule of thumb to gauge whether an article is 'concise' or not.
Well-written 1(b) 'words to watch': Is it ok to write "The law mandates ..."? Or should it be "The law reportedly mandates ..." or "The statement of the law mandates ..."? The literature I surveyed while writing on a law topic uses invariantly "The law mandates". Should I check as a reviewer whether a contributor consciously neutralises in such cases?
Verifiable with no original research 2(b) 'in-line citations': Consider this statement "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, ...". Lets assume that I am writing an article on 'Undergraduate essays' and I include the above statement in the article. In writing this statement I aggregated various parts from different sources. As this statement does not fall under 2(b) criteria because it's not controversial or in a way well-known, does it still need inline citations? Because if it does then every part needs to be cited. For instance "direct quotations" from first source, "statistics" from second source, and so on. Please clarify this point.
Broad in its coverage 3(a) 'main aspects of the topic': In the context of my GA nominee, there is a significant difference between what the article is now and what it was when I started contributing to it. Similarly it would cover more 'aspects of the topic' as the sources are further explored and researched in pursuit of pushing it to FA. This in turn means that at present it doesn't cover the 'main aspects of the topic' and violates 3(a) of GA. In fact this line of reasoning would be applicable to all the GA nominees. So as a reviewer how to know with reasonable certainty that an article is comprehensive enough to qualify for GA?
NPOV (4): About NPOV also I have a doubt. If there is a source let's say a government department the content of which provides a significant aspect to the topic. But the language of that source is a sort of 'projecting one's contribution in a positive way' style. According to NPOV, a contributor must preserve the tone of the source and being neutral here is not neutralising the position of the source. But it's a very difficult task when it comes to paraphrasing such a source because a contributor should project it the way it is and not the way he thinks it should be. The best option left is quoting the source. So how to resolve this dilemma? --Seabuckthorn♥03:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have a lot of complex questions, and I'm very glad to see that you're thinking deeply about how to apply the criteria. In general, you're seeing that the criteria are somewhat subjective. For many of these questions, you'll need to look at a few case studies, to see how to apply these criteria in practice. I will present some case studies for you in a subsequent section, once we are done with Step One and you've completed a quiz. For now, though, I'll do my best to answer your questions.
You're right that there's a lot of room for choice of style, and it's not the GA reviewer's job to insist on one style or another, so long as the article follows the guidelines for lead sections, for layout, and for "words to watch". There are many reasons why a BBC News article might not be the best example to follow. First, news articles might use "peacock" terms like "legendary", "acclaimed", or "visionary" to describe their subjects, but our "words to watch" guideline discourages those kind of words. For another, news articles often use very short paragraphs, but our layout guideline says to use single-sentence paragraphs as infrequently as possible. Instead of using a news article as a guide, it's best to look at Featured Articles on a similar topic, to see the sort of style they use.
You asked about the structure of sections, with an introduction, body, and conclusion. It's always important for an article to have a lead section, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section describes exactly what this should look like. For a particular section in the body of the article, it may be best in some cases to include an introduction, body, and conclusion—but in other cases, that isn't a useful structure. Regardless, as a GA reviewer, you shouldn't insist that a given section be structured in an ideal style, so long as it's clear.
You asked about an article's concision. There are a couple of criteria that are relevant here. 1a has to do with the prose of individual sentences or paragraphs, meaning that it's better to say "Abraham Lincoln was six feet tall" than "Abraham Lincoln was understood to have been six feet tall in height". That's what "concise" means in criterion 1a. Deciding whether the article as a whole is too long or too short is a matter for criteria 3a and 3b. If the Abraham Lincoln article devotes several section to the unrelated actions of his uncle, or if it gives far too much space talking about the controversies involved with one particular biography of Lincoln, then I would say the article has a problem staying focused on the topic, a 3b concern. And if it totally leaves out Lincoln's life before age 20, then I would say it fails to address the main aspects of the topic, a 3a concern. But we're not really concerned with absolute article size limits in the GA review process.
"Mandates" is not a word to watch, and it's very appropriate to use in the case you mention, so long as all reliable sources say this. If there is legitimate debate on whether the law mandates something or not, and different reliable sources come to different conclusions, then the article will have to take all these reliably-sourced POVs into account. But otherwise, you can say that the law mandates something.
I'm having trouble understanding your "Verifiable with no original research" question. Let me see if I understand correctly, using a simplistic example. Let's say I read a book that says that the sun is hot, in a direct quote. And I read another book that says the sun is 1.57×107 K at the center (a statistic). If I put the statement "The sun is hot" into a Wikipedia article, I have used direct quotes and statistics that I read, but I have not reproduced a direct quote in the article, and I have not given a statistic in the article. The sentence "The sun is hot" doesn't really need to be cited. It's better to cite your sources whenever you can, but for a GA review, it is only necessary to provide citations for "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".
To pass a GA review, an article does not have to fully cover the main aspects of the topic in the most complete way possible. It only has to "address" the main aspects. In a short article that briefly mentions an important aspect, it's really a judgement call to say whether it adequately addresses the aspect or not. You'll see better by looking at some examples.
Finally, NPOV is a tricky concept to get right. When a source is overly-positive or overly-negative, you have to make sure you don't repeat peacock terms, contentious labels, or editorializing language in the source. Beyond that, however, it's understandable that when you paraphrase sources that are fond of a topic, your text will include more positive aspects than negative ones. WP:NPOV is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you think an article is too positive about a topic, then it's up to you to find reliable sources that mention negative aspects, and then the article must incorporate those as well.
I can help with any other questions, or try to clarify. Otherwise, if you're ready to move on, let me know and I'll provide you with a quiz on the GA criteria. All the best, – Quadell(talk)16:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I should look at few case studies now. So we may proceed to the quiz. However please allow me sometime to come up with the answers. --Seabuckthorn♥04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that you are reviewing a Good Article nominee, and you come across the following situations. For each one, try to determine if it is
(A), a problem that must be fixed for the article to attain GA status,
(B), a short-coming that should eventually be fixed, though it isn't necessary for GA status, or
(C), not a problem at all.
In addition, if the answer is (A), please try to determine which Good article criterion is being violated. You can write down your answers if you like, or you can just decide your answer in your head.
Quiz
A sentence in the lead has a spelling error, although it's clear what is meant.
(A). 1(a):"the spelling ... are correct".
The article contains a direct quote without an inline citation to give the source of that quote.
(A). 2(b):"in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations ...".
(C). Few FAs I surveyed don't have one. There is no GA rule as such. However, MoS on article lead section does state infobox as a component. So I think it would depend on whether an infobox is available on similar articles under same subtopic.
The article uses British English in some parts, and American English in other parts.
(B). Doesn't violate any GA rule. Articles written in collaboration may have this problem. I think the underlying principle here is the intended audience. If article is part of 'Wikipedia India' project then it should preferably use Indian English. The article I contributed to mentioned "Use Indian English" at the top. Likewise it would be recommended for other country specific projects to consider the 'locale' in mind.
The article's lead section discusses only the positive aspects of a controversial subject, while the article's body discusses both the positive and negative aspects.
(A). 1(b). The lead is a summary of the body of the article. Hence lead needs to be rewritten.
(C). Doesn't violate any GA rule. Few FAs I surveyed do contain red links.
There are grammar errors, such as sentence fragments, in several places, though it's clear what is meant.
(A). 1(a):"the ... grammar are correct".
The article contains non-standard date formats, such as "April third" or "'95".
(B). Doesn't violate any GA rule. Same reasoning as in 'American English' Q above. The article I worked on had instructions to "use dmy format" which is commonly used in India. So I think locale specific date format is recommended.
The article does not contain any images, although there are relevant public-domain images available on Commons.
(A). 6:"Illustrated, if possible, by images". As the Q says it is possible, it must use those images.
The sources are formatted inconsistently, with some books including ISBNs and some not, and some including page numbers and some not.
(C). Doesn't violate any GA rule. For instance, citations adhering to Harvard naming convention would still have this variance. Moreover 'GACN:Mistakes to avoid' section states: "Requiring page numbers where these are not essential" and "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations". However, the source must be identified.
The article's lead section is made of a single sentence.
(A). 1(b): MoS of Lead section mandates that the opening paragraph should provide the definition. Hence, the whole purpose of the lead cannot be compressed within one sentence.
The article on a work of fiction contains a plot summary written in the past tense.
(A). 1(b): MoS fiction - "It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'".
The article uses only three sources, although those sources are reliable and seem to cover all the material in the article.
(C). Doesn't violate any GA rule. This FA is a classic example. It uses only three sources and two of which are by the same author.
A mildly-controversial statement in the article has an inline citation to someone's personal blog, which backs up the statement.
(A). 2(b):"citations from reliable sources for ... controversial statements". "Personal" blogs are "largely not acceptable" as reliable sources.
The article contains an "External links" section below a "See also" section.
(C). I am yet to find an article where this statement is applicable. This rule is followed by this FA, this FA, among others.
The article refers to the subject as "brilliant", "extraordinary", and "prestigious".
(A). 1(b). These are 'peacock words' as you explained while clarifying my doubts.
The article's title is non-standard, such as "Captain Bluebeard, pirate".
NA. Both option A and C require certainty. The MoS requires titles to be based on "what the subject is called in reliable sources". I think more information is required to answer this Q.
The article contains curse words in a direct quote that is relevant to the topic.
(C). Assumption is that this quote is cited using reliable sources and adheres to 2(b).
The article has closely used a source, almost exactly copying the text, but changing a few words here and there.
(A). 1(a):"respects copyright laws". The most significant problem is plagiarism.
All of the sources for the article are in a language you can't read.
(C). No problem with the article. A significant problem for the reviewer because NPOV is likely to be compromised. Translation and paraphrasing both compromise NPOV a bit. The former can be avoided if the reviewer knows the language of the source.
According to the solution key, my wrong answers are 10, 17. I would be glad if you can clarify on these points and also check if my reasoning for other questions are correct. Thanks for your hard work in organizing this excellent quiz that covers all the GA criteria precisely. --Seabuckthorn♥03:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is generally quite sound. I especially like your thinking regarding questions 4, 13, and 20.
For question 10, I think page numbers and ISBNs are useful in sources, so long as they don't violate whatever citation standard is used, but we both agree that they are not needed for GA status. I think we actually agree about the subject, even if I said (B) and you said (C). Similarly, for 17, we both understand that a non-standard title, such as "Captain Bluebeard, pirate", is a problem. But it's not in the GA criteria, and it's even listed in the "Beyond the scope" section of WP:GACN. Personally, if I found a GA nominee with a clearly inappropriate title, I would start a separate discussion about moving the article, either before I reviewed it or after I finished the review. But I would not bring it up as part of the GA review. (I've never actually encountered this situation, however.)
Question 15 was a sort of "trick question". I'm glad to see that you did not fall for it. Also, I'd like to let you know that question 3 has been the topic of furious debate over the last 6 months. Some people strongly believe every article should have an infobox, and they would add them to articles constantly. Other people hate infoboxes, and would remove them from articles. It even became an ArbCom case. Their decision was that nothing in the rules requires an infobox, and nothing in the rules discourages them, so no one should unilaterally add or remove infoboxes unless there's consensus for that particular article. If you were to insist, in a GA review, that an article include an infobox, you might find yourself in the middle of a huge conflict you didn't expect, so I'd tread carefully on that issue.
Finally, I will usually bring up (B) issues (such as the topics of questions 4 and 8) in a GA review, even if they're not required for GA status. Most reviewers will be glad to have opportunities for improvement brought to their attention, and they are usually happy to fix the problem. But since they are not actually required, if the nominator does not fix them, I'll pass the review anyway. (See, for example, the "numerals" issue I brought up at this recent GAN.)
Since I'm very happy with your answers, I will give you a list of case studies later today, of GA reviews I have done which I hope will be instructive. Once you have looked those over, I think you'll be ready for your first GA review! All the best, – Quadell(talk)15:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very thankful to you for giving me your experience-based tips as they would definitely be an important part of my skill sets as a GA reviewer. I am also happy to know my reasoning was correct. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify one more doubt. If I am using a Google book as a source that doesn't have page numbers but contains some relevant information to the topic. Should I manually count the page numbers from the start of the chapter, assuming the count is less than ten? What's the best way to cite such a source? I agree with our explanation of Q 10 and 17 completely.
While answering Q 15, I had some weird feeling about it. It did not fit in the category of normal questions and I was sure I would get it wrong. On a lighter note, I think it would be fun if I had got it wrong. It reinforces my compliment about your hard work in devising this quiz. I feel very lucky to have a mentor like you. This journey has been marvellous for me and you deserve a lot of credit for that. Regarding the sensitive issue of infoboxes, I would be cautious about it while reviewing. I do request you, at the same time, to highlight such controversial aspects as and when they come to your mind as we proceed further. We lost a finest Wikipedian Khazar recently due to such conflicts. So these insights are extremely important for me to know.
I thought that issues concerning Q 4 and 8 are automatically fixed in an article before they even reach GA nominations. While editing the article I found the dates and language aspects are persistently fixed by other Wikipedians. On few occasions I accidently deleted the top tags of 'use dmy dates', 'use Indian English but later found them added by someone else. I think Wikipedia takes these nuances seriously and is quite active in fixing it. Isn't it fair to assume that they are already fixed?
Thank you so much once again for your diligence. I have started looking at these case studies and you are absolutely right they are very instructive. However, please allow me some more time to study them carefully. Thanks --Seabuckthorn♥03:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding page numbers, it's fine to just list the chapter if the book doesn't give pages.
You're very welcome about my mentorship, but you are far too kind. In a way, I'm lazy—the more quality GA reviewers that are out there, the less I'll have to do!
I'll try to let you know about any landmines out there, but sometimes it's hard to know! I've definitely been surprised with the passion people have shown for preferring BC/AD over BCE/CE dates, or vice versa, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how strongly people feel about the names of Israel/Palestine-related places (or Jammu and Kashmir). I just try to show people respect, and I try to be willing to back down when I'm not 100% sure I'm right, and I'm very willing to ask other uninvolved editors when I'm not sure. That's the best advice I can give.
Date formats and English variant fixes are often fixed by WikiGnomes, but not always. I often encounter GA nominees with such problems, especially if they are on obscure topics.
Take as much time as you need with the case studies. When you've looked them over, ask any questions you like. And when you're ready to move on, let me know. – Quadell(talk)12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following case studies should show you a few real-world examples of reviews. There are many ways to perform reviews, and your way may differ a bit from mine, and that's fine. As you'll see, I tend to vary my reviewing style to fit the particular circumstances, so you may find some things you want to do similarly and some you want to ignore.
To start any review, I simply click on "follow this link" on the article talk page, and fill in the required fields. I like to add a note saying who the nominator is, just for my own benefit, but that's totally optional.
Quickfails
Most of the time, you will review and article and put it on hold for 7 days, giving the nominator a chance to fix the issues you have identified. A "quickfail" is when you simply fail the article right away. These are relatively rare. There are only three valid reason to quickfail an article.
(1) I will quickfail an article if it already has specific things that need to be done to improve it, things that the nominator already knows about and has not done. This will be the case if there are cleanup banners at the top of the page, such as {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, or {{unreferenced}}, or if there are multiple {{fact}} tags throughout the article. It can also be the case if the article already received a detailed GA review or peer review, but has not yet fixed the issues identified there. The nominator should fix these issues, and then renominate the article. This was the case at Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu/GA1, which I quickfailed.
(1) Although it's obvious that these banners should go even before the article reaches GA nominations, but why to enforce renomination and not put it on hold. In fact I am surprised at the carelessness of nominator of such an article and equally amazed to know that such articles do reach GA nominations. On a lighter note I would be hunting for such articles to add to my resume as a reviewer.
Well, anyone can nominate an article as a GAN anytime they want. Most people only nominate articles that are ready, but some people don't really understand the process.
You asked why we would quickfail rather than put it on hold. It's up to you, and you can put it on hold instead; sometimes it's appropriate to put in on hold and wait. But if the nominator hasn't bothered to fix obvious problems when there's a banner right there at the top of the article telling him or her to fix the problem, then he or she is unlikely to fix the problems when you mention them in a GAN. – Quadell(talk)15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(2) I'll also quickfail an article if it is a very, very long way from meeting the criteria, and I simply don't believe the nominator has any chance of getting the article GA-ready in the time it would normally be on hold. I use this very sparingly; it's usually better to simply leave the nomination on hold a week and let it fail at the end of that period. (This is what I did at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/GA3.) But in cases where the situation is truly hopeless, or where the nominator does not seem interested in improving the article, I'll quickfail for this reason. I still try to give as much specific information as possible to aid either this nominator, or anyone else who might come after him/her. See Talk:Variable Checkerspot/GA1 for an example.
(2) This article is humungous and it's remarkable how you could quickly skim through it to come up with such a lucid review. "There are many paragraphs without inline citations, and even some controversial statements and direct quotes without citations." Although I completely agree with your review, I could not understand why this particular aspect was "very, very long way" from GA. Even though providing citation is a lot of work but it's relatively much easier than rewriting a particular section. I think the nominator was not serious enough as is evident from the talk page. I request you to correct me if I am mistaken. "This lead gives a lot of information that is not present in the article body." I completely agree with you on the lead also. But the same question still persists in my mind - How is it "very, very long way" from GA? Although fixing lead is a lot of work in comparison to providing inline citations, to me it still reflects lack of seriousness on the part of the nominator. "This article begins with an "Overview" section". I could not find an overview section though. I think it may have been fixed. This article however is far lower in quality in comparison to the earlier one. Please feel free to correct my judgement about these articles.
The version of the article I reviewed was this one, with an overview section. You're right that it would have been possible for the nominator to fix these problem, if he had been very diligent and motivated. That's why I did not quickfail the article. I wanted to give him a chance to fix it. After a week, though, it was clear that it wasn't going to happen. (I'll also point out that I didn't do a very thorough review of the article. I only mentioned the most important flaws up front. If the nominator had fixed those, then I would have gone through in a detailed way, listing everything that needed to change.)
You can compare that, if you like, to Talk:Salt/GA1, the most difficult GAN review I ever did. Please don't get bogged down in the details; it's a very complicated case. But my point is, the article seemed a long, long way from GA status when it was nominated, but I didn't quickfail. Instead, I worked with the nominator, and she was willing to do an amazing amount of work during the review. By the time the review was done, the article was almost completely rewritten. That's a good example of why we shouldn't quickfail in these cases unless we're pretty sure that the nominator cannot or will not fix the problems in a reasonable amount of time. – Quadell(talk)15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Finally, if you detect significant copyright infringements in an article, you can quickfail it right away. This is because copyright violations are a legal problem that must be dealt with right away. You may want to also add {{subst:copyvio}} as well, depending on the severity. That's (sort of) what happened at Talk:I Am... World Tour/GA1.
(3) In this article, you mentioned "copyright violations are a legal problem". How is it not a "legal problem" once a banner is added? Shouldn't such content be removed right away?
Well, this was not a case where the entire article was copied from a source. It just had a few sentences in every section that were too close to the source (though not word-for-word identical). I think these problems can be fixed without creating a legal problem. But it's a gray area, and you'll have to use your best judgment, or ask for outside opinions, in specific cases. – Quadell(talk)15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To quickfail, just leave an appropriate description on the review page, and then follow the instructions: replace the {{GA nominee}} tag with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}, filling in the topic and page appropriately, like this. A bot takes care of everything else.
Standard nominations
This is what normally happens in a GAN review. I'll focus on three article I reviewed: Architecture of Scotland in the Roman era, United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, and Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo. In each step below, I'll give examples from these three nominations. (You can follow along with the links, but you don't have to thoroughly read and re-review all of these three articles. Just get a feel for the way the reviews went.)
Step 1: I always introduce myself and tell the nominator what to expect. (Sometimes they comment back to say hello or to thank me for taking on the review.) My initial introduction is often short and simple, like this or this. If I think I'll take longer than usual to perform the review, or if the nominator has been waiting a very long time for a review, I may mention it. And if I want to use my own particular style of reviewing, I'll let the nominator know, like this. For your first review, you should probably tell the nominator that it's your first, and that an experienced reviewer will be assisting you.
Step 2: Then I read through the article and take careful notes. Sometimes I print it out and use pen, but most often I enter comments in a text editor. Occasionally I edit the review page a little at a time, but I've found it usually works better to perform the main review all at once, so I wait until I have all my issues identified and ready to go. I'll usually mention issues that are not, strictly speaking, GA requirements, in the hopes that they will choose to improve them. Sometimes I copyedit the article myself to fix minor problems, but you don't have to.
Step 3: Then I leave my review on the review page. Sometimes, when the article is already a very strong candidate, I won't have many issues to mention at all, like this, and I'll just list them. Other times, I'll one of our reviewing templates to describe the issues. In this example, I fit all my concerns in the {{GAList2}} template. In this example, I used both a list to specify the issues, and a {{subst:GATable}} template to summarize. (In that last example, I went into way more detail than necessary, mentioning lots of issues outside the criteria—but I knew the nominator was planning to nominate it for FA status later, so I wanted to be as thorough as possible, as a favor to him.) Anyway, once all that is done, I tell the nominator that I'm putting the article on hold, and that he/she has 7 days to make the needed improvements. (If they ask for more time, I almost always say that's fine... but it's good to have a deadline, even if it's a soft deadline.) To put the article on hold, I go to the {{GA nominee}} tag on the article talk page and change "status=onreview" to "status=onhold", like this. A bot automatically notifies the nominator.
Step 4: The next part is up to them. Some nominators just ignore it, and I have to fail the nomination after a week, but most try in good faith to address my concerns. Once an problem is fixed, I indicate that in some way, such as crossing out my concern, moving the issue into a "resolved" section, or using a {{fixed}} template. If they run out of time and there are required issues that aren't resolved, and it doesn't look like they will resolve them any time soon, then I fail the nomination; but more often, everything gets taken care of. If you look at the final versions of Talk:Architecture of Scotland in the Roman era/GA1, Talk:Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo/GA1, and Talk:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe/GA1, you can see the discussions that took place as they dealt with issues. If all the necessary problems are fixed, I pass the article; I leave a note congratulating them, and I sometimes give ideas for future improvements. Then I follow the instructions here: I replace the templates on the talk page and add the article to the appropriate GA list. A bot will notify the user and add the green plus sign to the article.
And that's all there is to it! I know it's a lot to absorb, but I think if you understand these case studies, you should be ready to go. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. All the best, – Quadell(talk)18:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This GA is again an eye-opener for me. A GA nominee need not be very complex. I mean it's great how such modest topics sail through GA so smoothly. I should also commend your knack of selecting nominees for review. Your review begins with "This is a very strong candidate". I would request you to highlight more on how you arrived at this conclusion so easily in this particular case. For a newcomer like me, it's slightly different from the articles I have surveyed up till now. Further your review says "It is well organized, well written, and well sourced". I don't think all the references are accessible easily. How did you manage to access the sources? A library, I guess. On a lighter note, the statement "It was authority that collapsed, not the wall" caused some amusement to me. I think reviewing is fun.
I wrote that it was a strong candidate only after I'd read the entire article and taken notes on what might need to be changed. I only came to that conclusion once I'd already written the review. You're right that the references are not easily accessible, although I could see some using Google Books. For instance, look at reference #1, by Moffat. If you click on the ISBN, you go to a page where you can scroll down and click "Find this book at Google Book Search online database". When I click there, I get to this page, where I can see more about the book. Note that reference #1 supports a paragraph that talks about places called Devana, Alauna, etc. At the Google Books page I can search "From inside the book" for "Alauna", and I get to this page, where I see snippets of individual pages where "Alauna" is mentioned. It is indeed mentioned in pages 268-270, and I can see that many of the facts in that paragraph are indeed in the source. Do you see all this? This is one way to check the sources. (Although if you already know the nominator to be reliable, you may not need to check as carefully.) – Quadell(talk)15:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After going through these steps I felt that a reviewer is keen on getting the article to GA provided the nominator is ready to put in some effort. It has caused a sort of paradigm shift in my perception as a contributor when I witness this process from the other side of the table. I think the procedural aspects are best learnt through hands-on. So I have familiarized myself with the process through your conscientious case studies. If I have missed anything please feel free to offer any suggestions or corrections. If there is any part you want me to go through again, I would be glad to revisit. Else I think we may proceed on our 'odyssey'. But do protect me from the turbulence ahead. Thank you so much once again. --Seabuckthorn♥01:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfail (3): I'm sorry I still have one more doubt. Let's say I am a reviewer of an article under 'law' subtopic. It's understood that any article on a law or having a legal subject matter would be using the exact statements from the sources let alone exact words. Because in the field of law every word every punctuation is extremely important and even synonyms are considered different. How can Newton's laws be paraphrased? The most a contributor can do in these cases is summarize the source but that too with utmost caution. Just for example assume this FA to be a GA nominee which I choose to review. For random verification I pick this statement "Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them". Now when I refer the source I find the exact statement there. Since I as a reviewer don't know the fact that every source having "The Constitution of India" in its title has used the very same statement along with all the punctuations, I may consider it as plagiarism. In this sentence, for example, the word "only" must be retained else the entire article will be in disarray. Because here "only" means that a victim of discrimination can directly approach the Supreme Court of India under the Article 31 "only" if the discrimination falls under the given categories of "religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth". But if "only" is removed, these categories may be taken as instances of discrimination which is absolutely catastrophic. And that's exactly the reason why this FA uses only a couple of sources because there is not much to write. I'm sure there must be such peculiarities under every subtopic. I request you to offer some tips in such scenarios for new reviewers like me.
The example you give is a tricky situation. You are correct that sometimes there is no way to reword material from a source without changing the meaning. I believe the advice at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing might be useful to you. In general, it's best to use quotation marks when you are directly quoting a source; that way it's completely clear that you are using the source's wording. You may find that it's necessary to quote from the law itself in one section, but you may be able to rephrase a different part in your own words. – Quadell(talk)15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfail (3): In the above scenario, if an inexperienced reviewer quickfails the article citing copyright violations what steps a nominator should follow to bring the article back to GA nominations and ensure a review by an experienced reviewer, assuming it's the first article of the nominator.
About this article: I didn't know that. Now it becomes clear why you were stressing on page numbers and isbn in the quiz. Clicking on ISBN redirected me to a page on wikipedia which has a long list. From this list, I have used only Google Books quite frequently. Is there any other book sources from this list that you may have used quite frequently? After following your steps, I could see the snippets mentioning Alauna like p.268 "Horrea and Alauna in Fife ...", p.269 "the western Alauna seems..." and p.270 "Alauna means 'the Rock'". I think I should request you to include this technique for illustration for future mentees. Well I'm hungry for more such techniques and earnestly request you to kindly provide as and when you recall. A technique or a tip that's second nature and quite rudimentary to you may be novel for me.
That's a great idea! I will include Google Books searching instructions in my future mentorship instructions. Occasionally the link to Amazon will also have a "search inside" opportunity for books, but I've found it to be much less useful. I think that as I help you in a few real reviews, these sorts of tips will come up naturally, and I'll be able to show you how to do these sorts of things, and when it is appropriate. (For instance, I don't think it's worth it to check every source in an article; a few spot-checks should be fine.) I look forward to assisting you in an actual review. – Quadell(talk)15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To start a review, simply look through the articles listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and pick one you're interested in. Have a quick look to see what shape it's in. For your first review, it's best to pick a subject you know something about or have an interest in. It will go better if you pick one that is not overly-long with consistent problems of text that goes off topic or has persistent issues of bias. (Those can take a long time to resolve.) But really, I'm willing to assist with any article you pick.
I think I will go with Michael Novogratz. It's a biography, appears to be in good shape and a promising nominee. But before starting with the process and announcing myself on the talk page, I would like to discuss the article with you to be assured that I can pull it through. So I will submit my first assessment of the article to you shortly. Is my approach okay? --Seabuckthorn♥14:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a great choice. I'll be glad to help you with this one, and I'm sure that with my help, you'll be able to review it very well. I do suggest that you click "follow this link" on the talk page to start the review soon, though, since if you wait too long, some other reviewer might start a review themselves. Then, any preparatory work you have done would be wasted. All the best, – Quadell(talk)15:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! (By the way, TonyTheTiger is a very experienced GA-writer and GAN-reviewer, so that should go fine.) Okay, let's go down the GA criteria, one by one.
Ya I know. I visited his user page and also read one of his reviews here. I knew it would be very challenging and that's why I was a bit hesitant. To me it was like entering the tiger's den. And thinking of reviewing his article was like thinking of reviewing The Godfather. But then a thought crossed my mind and I decided to take up the challenge - I myself am riding a tiger! --Seabuckthorn♥16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead may have a couple of issues like the first line of the lead mentions him as the president of Fortress but the actual designation by the company's website is that of the Principal and Directorhere which is in fact mentioned in the Career section as Before assuming his current roles at Fortress as Principal and Director. The next issue may be with the sentence - He served in the U.S. Army National Guard after college. US Army National Guard may not be so intuitive and clear to non-US citizens. The company's website again mentions it as served as a helicopter pilot in the US Army, which comes in the first line of the Career section as After a stint in the New Jersey National Guard that included service as a helicopter pilot. Now the only doubt in my mind is whether his service as a pilot was just a part of his overall service in the US Army National Guard.
One more issue appears to me is again with the first sentence is the president of investment firm Fortress Investment Group. Shouldn't this statement also incorporate the date like as of to show how current this information is?
Well these are just very rough ideas that are currently in my mind. I need to dig more. What do you say about these issues? Should I work further along these lines with the aim of including them in the final review? --Seabuckthorn♥16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The lead needs to be expanded although twice may be too much. Not sure. What do you say? I think most sources I visited do mention a similar profile to what the nominator mentions in his lead. I found a lot of repetition in the authenticated sources I surveyed on Google and most of which is highlighted in the lead. Also while googling the topic on the right-hand side of the search results page the google shows this lead in a snippet form (I don't know what that's called technically.) which appears to me an accurate summary of what is presented in the sources especially Fortress and Acumen websites. But I'll go with your judgement while posting the final review. --Seabuckthorn♥04:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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).
This is the aspect I devoted most of my attention to. While reading the article the first time, it appeared to me that there must be some way to expand these sections mainly about Mr. Novo's early life. But there are no Google Books. While searching though I thought that I got one but it had only three lines about Mr. Novo. On Google also not much is available. In fact I must commend the nominator for organizing the meagre information that is available. In the article on WP about his sister Jacqueline Novogratz the first line of the Early life section says that she is the eldest of seven children. But its not cited. Also googling it led me nowhere. Any luck with your search? --Seabuckthorn♥04:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4:Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
After scrutinizing this article closely, I must appreciate the care he took while writing it. In one of his reviews he said "the best editors on WP present as many sides as possible to the readers. I write a lot about Michigan athletics, but I write the articles so that both Michigan's most diehard fans and Michigan's staunchest rivals feel that the articles are complete. I am a tell all writer on WP even if I am a fan. I don't sweep things under the rug." After a rigorous verification of his article, I did verify his statement on the touchstone and I do respect him a lot for what he said. --Seabuckthorn♥04:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quadell, I have got an unanticipated spike in the workload of my professional life. So I'm in a way looking to wind-up this review asap. Since I committed on the GA review page of Mr. Novo's article that I'd review it, I must also honor my word. As the nominator is a highly reputed and phenomenal contributor, I must not claim even an extra sec of his time. So I would like to request you to speedup things a bit for me and help me so that I am done with this in the least possible time. And please feel free to step in whenever you feel there's an unwarranted delay from my side. Thanks --Seabuckthorn♥04:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. I think the points you have made above are excellent. Simply put these points into the review page, and it will be ready to go. Below is an example of what you could copy-and-paste into the review page, although feel free to modify it any way you want—it's just my attempt to summarize your points above. Just place this (or something like it) in the review page, and I'm sure he'll get to it promptly. (And if you get extremely busy and can't close the review, no worries, I'll finish it for you.) All the best, – Quadell(talk)13:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:GAList2
|overcom=This biography appears to be in good shape and a promising nominee.
|1a=y
|1acom=I think the article is ok and as far as I have checked up till now no problems with 1a.
|1b=hold
|1bcom=See below.
|2a=y
|2acom=
|2b=y
|2bcom=
|2c=y
|2ccom=Appears ok to me.
|3a=y
|3acom=In fact I must commend the nominator for organizing the meagre information that is available.
|3b=y
|3bcom=
|4=y
|4com=appears fine to me
|5=y
|5com=(Who would dare to war with a wrestler Mr. Novo? {{(-:}}).
|6a=y
|6acom=
|6b=y
|6bcom=No images are available so we can't stress.
|7=hold
|7com=On hold for the 1b issues below.
}}
'''Issues with 1b:''' The lead needs to be expanded a bit, to adequately summarize all the sections of the article,
incorporating some more information from the "Career" and "Personal" sections. Also, the first line of the lead mentions
him as the ''president'' of Fortress but the actual designation by the company's website is that of the ''Principal and
Director'' [http://www.fortress.com/AboutFortress/Leadership/Board.aspx?id=9 here] which is in fact mentioned in the ''Career''
section as ''Before assuming his current roles at Fortress as Principal and Director''. The next issue may be with the
sentence - ''He served in the U.S. Army National Guard after college''. US Army National Guard may not be so intuitive and
clear to non-US citizens. The company's website again mentions it as ''served as a helicopter pilot in the US Army'', which
comes in the first line of the ''Career'' section as ''After a stint in the New Jersey National Guard that included service
as a helicopter pilot''. Now the only doubt in my mind is whether his service as a pilot was just a part of his overall
service in the US Army National Guard. One more issue appears to me is again with the first sentence ''is the president of
investment firm Fortress Investment Group.'' Shouldn't this statement also incorporate the date like ''as of'' to show how
current this information is? Finally, link to [[New Jersey National Guard]] and [[Chief Information Officer]] as well.
Wishing you a Merry Belated Christmas and Advance Happiest of Happy New Years!! First of all I want to take this opportunity to say a huge thank you to you for your diligent and patient mentoring. I'm looking to kickstart the journey once again. --Seabuckthorn♥15:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Merry Christmas to you as well. I am ready to aid you in your second review whenever you're ready. Do you want to pick a GAN, or would you like some suggestions? – Quadell(talk)16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. That nominator typically writes about Scotland in the Middle Ages, so this topic is a bit of a change for him. I'll make suggestions below when I get some time. – Quadell(talk)18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just check it every so often. In Wikipedia settings, there's an option to have Wikipedia e-mail every time an article on your watchlist changes, but I'd get hundreds of e-mails a day if I did that. – Quadell(talk)18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I notice is that the references list appears good, and the sources look reliable. At first glance, it looks like all the statements are cited. The lead looks to be an appropriate length for the article, but I would check it carefully to make sure it adequately covers all sections of the article. I would also try to determine if the article covers all aspects of the topic or not. Can you see sources 1, 2, and 3? They're used a lot throughout the article.
Just as before, look carefully at the GA criteria and go through them one by one. In what ways does this article pass 1a, and what 1a problems exist? Are there problems with the lead or the layout? Any other 1b problems? Go through each one and tell me if you think it passes that criterion or not, and what needs to be improved. – Quadell(talk)18:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I noticed that 1,2, and 3 are the major ones. I've few insights about the first point.
Are there problems with the lead? With the layout? With the other sections listed above?
Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE). I recommend the following revision:
Heartland rock is a genre of rock music that is exemplified by the commercial success of singer-songwritersBruce Springsteen, Bob Seger, Tom Petty and John Mellencamp. It was characterized by a straightforward musical style, a concern with the average, blue collarAmerican life, and a conviction that rock music has a social or communal purpose beyond just entertainment. It was also associated with a number of country music artists including Steve Earle and Joe Ely, along with less widely known acts such as Southside Johnny & the Asbury Jukes and the Iron City Houserockers. The genre developed in the 1970s and reached its commercial peak in the 1980s, when it became one of the best-selling genres in the United States. In the 1990s, many established acts faded and the genre began to fragment, but the major figures have continued to record with commercial success.
Second source is about.com. I googled "Is about.com a reliable source of information?". Yahoo answershere says "It may even be as accurate if not more than Wikipedia". But WP can't be cited. What's your opinion about about.com being a RS? --Seabuckthorn♥19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2a:it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Do you see any significant problem with the "References" section?
OK
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).
Are there any statements that need to be sourced, but aren't? Are any of the sources unreliable or problematic?
This criteria needs a lot of attention as the credibility of the sources is doubtful.
The author of Source 2 is Steve Peake profile. As per WP:RSVETTING, I have following questions:
Who is the author? Is the author an established expert? Google search showed no results on him.
The author does not have a Wikipedia article.
The author's academic credentials and professional experience are not known.
Is the publication about.com reliable in this case?
Is the second source a WP:RS and not a WP:SPS? I recommend removing this source and citing a reliable source.
Similarly, The author of Source 10 is Jason Ankeny profile. As per WP:RSVETTING, I have following questions:
Who is the author? Is the author an established expert? Google search showed no results on him other than the allmusic.com.
The author does not have a Wikipedia article.
The author's academic credentials and professional experience are not known.
Is the publication allmusic.com reliable in this case?
Is the second source a WP:RS and not a WP:SPS? I recommend removing this source and citing a reliable source.
Likewise for Sources 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17.
It looks like About.com isn't a RS. Therefore, for everything sourced to it, the nominator will have to decide: Is this the sort of statement that needs a source? If so, do other sources support it? If not, that material should be removed. Certainly claims like "...who has been described as defining the genre in the 1980s" and "Newer artists whose music perhaps would have been labeled heartland rock... were now grouped into alt-country" are the sort of likely-to-be-contested statements that needs a source.
It's good that you found this problem. It's possible that the nominator will be unable to fix this problem in 7 days, and the nomination may fail for that reason. – Quadell(talk)20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more problem. Refer sources 9-17. They're from allmusic. It's credibility is disputed. See here. Although one author I checked W. Ruhlmann was in fact a well-established critic. I haven't checked others. But from NPOV it's disputed.
I don't think that's a problem. You can always find someone online who thinks a particular site is not credible, but what matters here is whether consensus on Wikipedia calls it credible or not. A lot of Featured articles (for example Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)) cite AllMusic, so I think it should be fine. But it's good that you were careful to check! – Quadell(talk)23:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refer this Google Book - Music of the 1980s By Thomas Harrison (p.65) here. The last line says "Springsteen had an established career in the 1970s". The article says "After a series of critically highly regarded, but modestly selling albums with the E Street Band, he achieved his breakthrough in 1975 with Born to Run". The article may not be giving due weight to other POVs. That's because it's sourcing it's content heavily from few sources. The book by Harrison is not cited. I am surprised. What do you say? --Seabuckthorn♥21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the source you found contradicts what's in the article. You can have an "established career" with "critically highly regarded, but modestly selling albums". I don't see a POV problem, although you might want to suggest that source you found to the nominator as a way of improving the article. You're right that the article relies on just a few sources, but I think that's because there are few online sources that analyze the "heartland rock" genre. – Quadell(talk)23:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a problem with citing an AllMusic review, and I wouldn't challenge Ankeny's credentials. However, there may be a wording problem. The article says that Springfield's songs were "influenced by 50s rock and roll, Bob Dylan and Phil Spector's Wall of Sound", but the review only really says that the songs "evoke" Spector and Dylan to that reviewer. It's an important difference. I don't think it would be a problem to say in the article "...in songs that critic Jason Ankeny described as evoking Bob Dylan and Phil Spector", and the source would be fine if it were worded that way. – Quadell(talk)23:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To digress a bit from the topic, read Google Book - The Words and Music of Bruce Springsteen By Rob Kirkpatrick (p.51) here. It's related to Q18 you asked in the quiz. It's very sad to see Springsteen embroiled in such a mess. --Seabuckthorn♥22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should post these two criteria and wait. The verifiability part is disappointing. There are other reliable sources available in the form of Google Books. They ought to be covered. At the same time, SabreBD seems to have worked hard on this article. Refer talk page. What to do? What does your experience say? Is there any hope for the article? --Seabuckthorn♥22:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you should say that the article has many strengths, such as the prose quality and the reference formatting, and the fact that it's appropriately illustrated. But then you should mention those criteria 1 and 2 problems. Put the article on hold for 7 days and see what happens. Maybe he'll find alternate sources and fix the issues quickly, and if so, then you can analyze the rest. But it's also entirely possible that he won't want to fix it badly enough to find new sources and rewrite the parts based on AllMusic, so he may just leave it. If that happens, you can fail it after a week. That's the strategy I would use if I were you. – Quadell(talk)23:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've been on WP for about 11 years. Did you land on cradle or directly on WP? You must have been among first few account holders on WP, I guess. --Seabuckthorn♥22:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! When I joined, there were already a few thousand Wikipedians (though more than half of them have quit since then). I thought I was late to the party... but Wikipedia has grown so much since then! It's been great to be a part of. – Quadell(talk)15:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very well-written in terms of the prose quality and the reference formatting. It's a very promising candidate. I've few insights to offer.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Issues with 1b: Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE). I recommend the following revision:
Heartland rock is a genre of rock music that is exemplified by the commercial success of singer-songwritersBruce Springsteen, Bob Seger, Tom Petty and John Mellencamp. It was characterized by a straightforward musical style, a concern with the average, blue collarAmerican life, and a conviction that rock music has a social or communal purpose beyond just entertainment. It was also associated with a number of country music artists including Steve Earle and Joe Ely, along with less widely known acts such as Southside Johnny & the Asbury Jukes and the Iron City Houserockers. The genre developed in the 1970s and reached its commercial peak in the 1980s, when it became one of the best-selling genres in the United States. In the 1990s, many established acts faded and the genre began to fragment, but the major figures have continued to record with commercial success.
Issues with 2b: The author of Source 2 is Steve Peake profile. As per WP:RSVETTING, I have the following questions:
Who is the author? Is the author an established expert? Google search showed no results on him.
The author does not have a Wikipedia article.
The author's academic credentials and professional experience are not known.
Is the publication about.com reliable in this case?
Is the second source a WP:RS and not a WP:SPS? I recommend removing this source and citing a reliable source. The RS Noticeboard (here) has consensus that about.com is not a RS. All important information that relies on this source will have to either be removed or be cited to a different source.
Another 2b issue: The article says that Springfield's songs were "influenced by 50s rock and roll, Bob Dylan and Phil Spector's Wall of Sound". The source says "A blue-collar fairy tale evoking Phil Spector in its romanticized grandeur and Bob Dylan in its street-corner poetic grit". The source talks about what the album evoked for that reviewer, and not what Springfield used as an influence. I recommend a reparaphrasing to clarify that one reviewer found these links, but to not claim that Springfield intended them.
I am putting this article on Hold for 7 days. If the required issues are dealt with in that time the article will pass, otherwise it will fail.
I have altered the wording, but it's just my opinion, so feel free to change any part back if you want. In my experience, it's best to set a hard deadline... and when a change is required, it's important to say that it really is necessary. What do you think of the wording now? – Quadell(talk)15:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just fabulous. I particularly liked your thinking in this sentence: "The source talks about what the album evoked for that reviewer, and not what Springfield used as an influence". I was wrong. That's great. Kudos to you, a lot! --Seabuckthorn♥16:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been on hold for six days without any response from the nominator. By tomorrow, if nothing further happens, I'd recommend failing the nomination due to inactivity. The way to do that is, just add something like the following to the bottom of the review page:
This nomination has been on hold for 7 days. I'm going to fail this nomination due to inactivity. If you resolve the above issues at a later date, feel free to renominate the article for GA status.
...or something like that. Then change the {{GA nominee}} template to {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=Music|page=1}}. But don't do that until tomorrow; you want to be sure to give the nominator the full 7 days, in case he decides to deal with the issues today. – Quadell(talk)13:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is very far from being a Good Article. I've only analyzed the first criteria. I could find so many issues already. I'm listing them below.
In what ways does this article pass 1a, and what 1a problems exist?
The article requires a thorough proof-reading. The prose lacks clarity and flow. It's convoluted and has errors. Few are listed here:
Fix "Led by a group of one hundred volunteers" in the lead.
Remove Party from "Indian National Congress Party".
Fix "on the west coast of India)" in the Background section.
Fix "Some one hundred prominent members" in the Background section.
Fix "even imposed a threat of being sentenced" in The march section. Appears incomplete.
Fix "On hearing this, Rajaji retorted that, he could understand the mindset of his people than a British ICS officer could do".
Fix "Iyer's arrest prompted people to think in such a way that they could help the group while not getting caught by the police".
Fix "As the group sheltered in the river beds of Cauvery, they found food containers buried in the beds". It's unclear. Were they scuba diving in the river?
Fix "On the contrary, the British police suffered from starvation as people refused to offer even water". The police came from Britain! Make it clear.
Fix "The Indian staff working at government offices stopped themselves from carrying out their day-to-day activities". It's very convoluted.
Are there problems with the lead? With the layout? With the other sections listed above?
The lead should be rewritten as per MOS:LEAD taking into account the following points:
Definition and notability should be in the first sentence. As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". It is recommended that the first sentence of the lead be rewritten to reflect clearly the definition and notability of the topic.
The lead says the march "was organized to protest" while the source says it was "to defy".
The lead says it was against the "salt tax" while the source says it was against "the Salt Law".
The lead says "imposed by the British Raj in India" while the source says "to defy the Salt Law of the British Government". As per MOS:JARGON, the editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible.
The lead just says "The march took place in April 1930" but the source mentions the exact date as "Seventy years ago on April 13, 1930". It's relevant because both the beginning and the end of the march are in April.
The source does not use the exact term mentioned in the lead Vedaranyam March or Vedaranyam Satyagraha but says "Salt Sathyagraha March, which started at Tiruchi on April 13, 1930". As per WP:BEGIN, the title does not need to appear verbatim in the lead if it's merely descriptive.
The lead says that the march "was the second of its kind following the Dandi March organised by Mahatma Gandhi, both in the framework of the Civil Disobedience Movement" while the source says "From the point of view of the upheaval it created in the consciousness of the masses and classes alike, the Vedaranyam march takes its rank next to the Dandi march of the Mahatma". Another source (The Hindu) says that "The Dandi March ... became the prelude for the epich march to Vedaraniam under the leadership of Rajaji". So it's rank as the second needs clarification and qualification. The sentence should be reparaphrased to reflect the position of the sources as per WP:NPOV. As per MOS:LEAD, it is also recommended that it should be written in a clear, accessible style.
Please note that as per WP:LEADCITE, Some material ... must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.
The source says "led a group of 100 Congress workers". The lead says "Led by a group of one hundred volunteers from the Indian National Congress (INC) Party". This may be close paraphrasing. As per WP:PARAPHRASE, it should be rewritten. Is this fact the most important? As per MOS:LEAD, the lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies..
I'm not sure I agree with all of the points you raise in this review. Some of the 1a points you raise are valid, but others are questionable; regardless, the article is currently undergoing a copy-edit, so the prose will probably be different in many ways the next time you take a look at it. Try to only mention clear errors of grammar or places where the wording is unambiguously bad, but don't bring up every case where you might have worded it differently.
I have to say, I think I disagree with every 1b issue you raised. The wording "was organized to protest" is a fine paraphrase of "to defy", and more NPOV, so there is no problem there. The "salt tax" and "the Salt Law" are functionally equivalent, since the law instituted the tax. The wording "the British Raj in India" is fine, so long as the article links to British Raj (which it does). Since the body of the text specifies the exact begin and end dates for the march, it's fine for the lead to summarize with "The march took place in April 1930". WP:BEGIN does say "the title does not need to appear verbatim in the lead if it's merely descriptive", but it's also fine for the title to appear in the lead, and I don't think there's a problem with the title in the lead currently. I think "the second of its kind" just means second sequentially, not second in importance, and I don't think it's a NPOV problem. WP:LEADCITE does indeed say "Some material ... must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned", but LEADCITE specifies that it's referring to "direct quotations and contentious material about living persons", and there isn't any of that it the lead; I don't think this lead needs any citations at all. And it is not close paraphrasing to rewrite "led a group of 100 Congress workers" as "Led by a group of one hundred volunteers from the Indian National Congress (INC) Party". Close paraphrasing is a serious charge, and should only be raised when there are clear duplications of more than just a few words.
There are some problems with this article that you should raise as the GA reviewer. I think there are 3a concerns in that the article is very short; compare to Salt March. I think more information about the march and its place in Indian history could be added. I think there are 1b MOS:LAYOUT problems in that there are too many very short paragraphs, particularly in "Aftermath". So there are important things to mention. But I think you may be bringing up too many minor things that aren't necessary to change.
I hope I don't discourage you in this response. It's great that you're doing these reviews, checking the sources, and communicating with the nominators. I just want to make sure that you're giving a fair review here. I think this will be a useful learning experience. All the best, – Quadell(talk)14:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My head is steaming at the moment. Feeling embarrassed. Only one thing is in my mind: "Speed thrills but kills!". I feel like logging off from WP and somehow disappear and imagine I've no obligation towards anyone. But I've to fix what I messed up. Have you ever felt such a way in your stay on WP? What did you do to restore your balance of mind? My mistakes are hurting me more because the users working on that article have been so polite and friendly to me. In hindsight, what do you think could have been done differently? Were the mistakes committed due to haste? But after graduating from Recruitment Center, I wouldn't be able to discuss every nitty-gritty with you. What tip would you like to offer so that I do not land up in such a situation in future? --Seabuckthorn♥15:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it too hard! I've made lots of mistakes on Wikipedia—the important thing is just to learn from them. I sure hope you don't actually disappear! In this specific case, I would recommend you simply remove the 1b issues you wrote, and replace it with any concerns you might have about criteria 3 through 6. I don't think it would be a problem. In general, you'll learn as you do GAN reviews what to focus on and what to ignore. You were probably a little hasty, but that happens.
There have definitely been times on Wikipedia when I've felt overwhelmed and embarrassed and burnt out. It's usually after a conflict with another editor. Sometimes I'll take a wikibreak for a few days (or longer), just to clear my head and remind myself that it's not such a big deal.
By the way, even after you graduate, I'll be here to help whenever you ask. If you're not sure if an issue is really important or not, or if you and a nominator disagree, it's fine to ask for a second opinion from me or anyone else.
I've tried my best to clear my conscience by apologizing profusely to the users. I've removed the review altogether. I'll take some time in drafting the final version. To clear my head, I took a steam bath and designed this:
Seabuckthorn is busy practicing this and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Thanks for your words above. I'm feeling much better now. Thanks for sharing your experience. In fact, I'm struggling to put my gratitude in words. You've been truely a friend indeed. --Seabuckthorn♥19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user Shir-El too belongs to the Guild of Copy Editors. The nominator submitted the article for copy-editing to this user. A new revelation to me. I didn't know there are such arrangements on WP. The nominator is, so to say, not so good in English. I just assumed that the nominator was well-versed with the language and simply forgot to proof-read the article. My review in essence ridiculed him. OMG! This thing is getting worse. --Seabuckthorn♥20:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I understand, I've had that experience myself. When someone isn't that great at English, I usually recommend he or she submit the article to GOCE first, and then I review it. After GOCE finishes, it's likely that there won't be very many 1a problems left. In this case, both were happening at once, and you didn't know. Just be fair in your review—not overly critical, but not overly lenient either. You can't pass an article that doesn't meet the standards, so you have to check every criterion, but it's good to remember to be kind to the nominator, and it's good to remember to be kind to yourself as well. – Quadell(talk)20:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was very emotional and upset at that time. I'm calm and composed at the moment. I'm in a fix, don't know what's the best. But really, I'm looking for an exit route. You may want to have a look at my talk page to assess the situation (By the way, the new look was generously pirated from Misza 13 on new year's eve). What do you say? Can I exit safely? --Seabuckthorn♥15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have two options. You could go ahead and do the review, starting over. (If you do that, I suspect it will go well. The nominator seems friendly and willing to fix errors you find.) Or you could decide not to do the review—but since you already clicked the "Click here to start the review" link, it is tricky to undo that. If you choose not review it, I'll probably take over the review and review it myself. I don't mind. Normally, though, it's best not to start a review unless you're sure you want to finish it... but since you're still being mentored, it's fine either way. So which do you want to do? – Quadell(talk)18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No no! I think you got me wrong. I felt that you were in a hurry to wind this up. That's why I said. If you're ready to assist me, then I'd be very happy to take it up. I'm overwhelmed by your humility. My heart is filled up to the brim. I hope it doesn't overflow. Just wondering, did you go through a process called galvanization before joining WP? --Seabuckthorn♥18:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy to assist you. Since this article was recently copyedited, I suppose it would be best to start afresh with analyzing 1a and 1b. But first, in a relatively short article on a controversial historic topic, I think the most important questions to ask concern criteria 2, 3, and 4. So if you don't mind, I'd like to analyze this article in a different order than we're used to.
As for criterion 3, does it seem to you that this article addresses the main aspects of the topic? To put it another way, are there aspects of the march that the sources cover, but that are not adequately addressed in this article?
Yes, I've checked Article scope as defined by reliable sources (here(p.302)) and there(p.28). I've checked in one highly reputed source with me India's struggle for independence by Bipan Chandra who is considered as expert in the field. But the only mention is In Tamil Nadu, C.Rajagopalachari, led a salt march from Trichinopoly to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore coast. By the time he was arrested on 30 April he had collected enough volunteers to keep the campaign going for quite some time.. Likewise with other sources. The content is very sporadic in the RS. I think the contributors have done a really good job in providing the most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge under this article. But as you mentioned - "I think there are 3a concerns in that the article is very short; compare to Salt March. I think more information about the march and its place in Indian history could be added.". I agree with your suggestion here. I'm going to include your point in the review. What do you say? --Seabuckthorn♥17:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. But if the nominator can't find any RSes that cover it in more detail, and you can't either, then you can't fail to pass the article on this issue. – Quadell(talk)17:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for criterion 4, does this article have any NPOV problems? To put it another way, are there significant views about the march that are underrepresented in this article?
Honestly, It's very difficult to tell. This article heavily draws from source 3 by Gandhi, Rajmohan. It's a biography of Gandhi. I couldn't find sources related to Tamil Nadu freedom struggle. The place Vedaranyam is in Tamil Nadu. So we'll have to assume it does clear NPOV. What's your opinion? Did I miss anything? --Seabuckthorn♥17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as for criterion 2, are the sources reliable? We know that "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" all need to be sourced... are all such statements sourced?
I'm starting to get worried about this one. It's been a week now since you accepted it. I'm quite willing to review it myself, if you'd prefer. Or of course, it would be fine if you review it. But either way, someone should review it very soon. – Quadell(talk)16:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). Single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized (MOS:PARAGRAPHS). I recommend the following revision:
The Vedaranyam March or Vedaranyam Satyagraha of April 1930 was organised to protest the salt tax imposed by the British Raj in India and was the second of its kind following the Dandi March organised by Mahatma Gandhi,[1][2] under the Civil Disobedience Movement. The march was led by a group of 100 volunteers from the Indian National Congress (INC) under the leadership of C. Rajagopalachari—often referred to as "Rajaji". It began at Trichinopoly (now Tiruchirappalli) and ended in Vedaranyam, a small coastal town in Tanjore District.[3] By collecting salt directly from the sea, the marchers broke the salt law. Rajaji spoke to people along the march's route about the importance of Khādī, issues of 'social disabilities' (cast discrimination) and civil disobedience. The campaign ended on 28 April 1930 when the participants were arrested, following which Rajaji was imprisoned for six months.
Use a different more neutral heading for section Aftermath (MOS:BODY).
Fix single-sentence paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS). The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized. Fix the single-sentence paragraph in the section Aftermath "A fortnight later, Rajaji was transferred From the Trichinopoly prison to Madras, then to the Bellary Central Jail". Fix the single-sentence paragraph in the lead "The campaign ended on 28 April 1930 when the participants were arrested, following which Rajaji was imprisoned for six months."
3a:
The article is very short; compare to Salt March. I think more information about the march and its place in Indian history could be added.
After we are done with this March, I'd need a lot of help from you about this "But first, in a relatively short article on a controversial historic topic, I think the most important questions to ask concern criteria 2, 3, and 4. So if you don't mind, I'd like to analyze this article in a different order than we're used to". It's a very good point you raised. Please feel free to offer your suggestions. There's absolutely no question of me minding anything. In fact this is my weak point and you're absolutely right. But I want more discussion and help from you on this point after we've are done with the march. --Seabuckthorn♥20:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I would also mention that the copy-edit helped improve the prose a lot. (That's a nice and encouraging thing to say.) I think you're ready to submit the review.
By the way, I'm going to have to take a Wikibreak soon, for a couple of weeks. I'll still check in every so often to see how these reviews are going and to answer your questions, but I suspect I won't have as much time as I've been used to, starting tomorrow and lasting between two weeks and a month. I just wanted to let you know. All the best, – Quadell(talk)17:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted the review. Ah! It's a relief.
That's great! I'll be awaiting your return. I'd in the meantime revise and practice what I've learnt from you here. But I'll surely miss you a lot. Thank you very very ... much for all your selfless devotion and diligence for me. --Seabuckthorn♥18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need your second opinion on the first sentence of the lead. I think the lead sentence can be improved but the nominator thinks otherwise. I'm not sure I'm right. Can you help? What do you think? --Seabuckthorn♥15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think your version of the first sentence is better, but I think the current version is acceptable. So the point you raised is a good one, and it was important to bring up, but I don't think you can insist. This is one of those cases where the lead passes or GA criteria, even if there is still room for improvement.
Also, I think you dealt with the 3a issue very well. He may be able to expand the article a little, but if he makes a good effort and can't find much, that will be fine. This review is going well! – Quadell(talk)16:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This review is going quite well, and I believe you'll be able to handle it from here without the need for thorough recruiter guidance. Your reviews on this page, and especially the one you began on your own here, show me that you have graduated the GA mentorship program and truly ready to perform high-quality GAN reviews on your own. – Quadell(talk)17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fix section Personal life (MOS:PARAGRAPHS). The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Either this section should be merged into the previous section, or else more information on the character's personal life should be added.
Use a different heading for section Critical acclaim. Many FAs on fictional characters refer to "Reception" or "Critical reception", which would be more neutral.
Use attribution for The role garnered Louis-Dreyfus milestone awards in the lead.
Use attribution for surpassed Lucille Ball as the most ever in the lead.
Use attribution for record-setting achievement in the lead.
Your point about WP:LAYOUT is very good. I would also give a specific recommendation, which I added above.
I've included your recommendation in the review. I'd like to ask one question for a similar situation. Lets say if the article were a BLP. Wouldn't expanding personal life be an intrusion on the person's privacy? In that case what would reviewer advice - removal or expansion? --Seabuckthorn♥23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a BLP expert, but as I understand it, so long as every statement is sourced and worded in a NPOV manner, it's fine. I think you just have to be more careful with BLPs, being sure that the sources are good and the wording is cautious. But it's fine to include information on a living person's personal life. – Quadell(talk)15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a lighter note, I did think it was a BLP and reviewed from that perspective. But later noted that it's a fictional character. It would have been a very embarrassing situation for me if I'd submitted that to you. And that's why I asked this question --Seabuckthorn♥16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Puffery concerns, keep in mind the the lead usually does not need citations. If the same information is provided in the article body, and the information is sourced there, then it's not necessary to source the same information in the lead. Since the information about winning Emmy awards and surpassing Lucille Ball is all adequately sourced in the body, it's not a problem to include this information in the lead without a citation. (I've crossed those out, above.) Generally, the only statements that need to be cited in the lead are particularly controversial statements and direct quotes. This lead doesn't have either, so it's fine.
I was stressing citations in the lead in this review for puffery concerns. But my assumptions about puffery themselves were wrong. But I've a question here as well. What if puffery is there in the lead? Would it be cited then? Or in general for other words to watch? The source of my doubt is the statement that all words to watch are fine if they use attribution. But I do have a hunch that such cases are very less. --Seabuckthorn♥23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead said "This acclaimed person made fantastic contributions", then it would be puffery, and it should be reworded whether it was sourced or not. But this article said "Louis-Dreyfus has been critically acclaimed for this role", specifying the awards she won. It could be puffery to say "This acclaimed doctor", but it could be fair to say "This doctor has been acclaimed by the WHO". See what I mean? You have to look at the specific quote in context, and not just the word used, to tell if it's a problem.
To be honest, this is a gray area. Some reviewers might say you shouldn't even say she had "been critically acclaimed" for this role. I just don't think it's a matter of bias, since the specific critical acclaim is listed. – Quadell(talk)15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Well, if there were a RS that said she did a terrible job playing this character, that would presumably go in the same section as the reviewer who said she did great. And since the section is meant to hold all critical reception, both positive and negative, it might seem biased to mention only the positive in the section title. (Another reviewer might decide that it's not a problem, but you had mentioned it as a WTW issue, and in this case, I could see your point.) – Quadell(talk)15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great answer! I never thought from this perspective. The very purpose of a section is to accomodate related views of RS. A good tip from you. --Seabuckthorn♥16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of your WP:SAY issues, but I disagree with others, and I'll try to explain why. The guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch can be confusing, so this could be a great opportunity to better understand that guideline. As it says at the top of that page, the reason WTW exists is to make sure articles are "well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." If an article on Israel and Palestine gave a contentious direct quote from a partisan, and used verbs like "noted" or "explained", it would bias the reader into thinking that the contentious statement were true or endorsed by Wikipedia. That's why verbs like "noted" and "explained" are discouraged in these situations. But if the statement is simply factual and uncontroversial, it's fine to use "noted" or "explained", and many FAs do. When Stanley "notes that Meyer's party affiliation is unknown", that's not a WP:SAY problem, but it would be a problem if the article said "Stanley notes that Meyer is the greatest fictional vice president of all time." See the difference?
The crux of the matter is the contentious statement. Is it? I mean we should check for whether the subject matter is disputed or not? Can you elaborate on other note words that were ok? I mean the explanation was short so I'm not sure if I understood. Opinion and interpretation, what's the difference? Both are critics, so their opinion will be based on some interpretation. Lets take only this article as an example. What's the difference in the two statements both having noted in them? --Seabuckthorn♥23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To some degree, it's a gray area. I'm sure it's fine to say "He noted that Delhi is in India", and many FAs do. I'm sure it's not okay to say "He noted that Russians are more valorous than Ukrainians", even if he did say that, because presumably Ukrainians would disagree. When the article says "Ken Tucker noted that the premise of a politician without influence striving for it suited itself well to a comedy", that's a gray area. Some reviewers would suggest rewording, while others would think it was fine.
What I wanted to avoid was insisting that the nominator use "said" every time, limiting their language and making the prose more boring, unless there is a good reason. If it's a gray area, I think "Is it necessary to change this?" And if not, I just don't want the nominator to feel like I'm picking on him, bringing up tons of unimportant issues. See what I mean? (And to be honest, TonyTheTiger is a good writer and reviewer, but he can sometimes be rude if he disagrees with you. I could imagine him saying "That's not a problem" and being rude to you, and I wanted to protect you from that.) – Quadell(talk)15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I agree with you. I've had a first hand experience in my first review of his article. Thanks for the care. It's a revelation that you think and feel so deeply. A beautiful mind complemented by a beautiful heart! --Seabuckthorn♥16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that, I think this is great, I agree with your plan to post this and put the article on hold. Now I'm off to a New Years party, so I'll check back tomorrow. All the best, – Quadell(talk)22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted the review. I've placed the article on hold. Thanks for your explanation. Wishing you and your family a very happy and prosperous new year! --Seabuckthorn♥23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've passed the article. I hope I've done everything right this time. I'd be glad if you could check. Thanks and congrats, it wouldn't be possible without your diligent mentoring.
Yes and that really encourages a reviewer. Thanks and congrats to you too! I hope I could do some justice to your diligent mentoring. --Seabuckthorn♥16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide me a list of careful authors like TonyTheTiger and SabreBD for my future reference? Their articles provide a very fresh perspective and are a privilege to read and review. I believe such authors and their articles should not wait in queue. Is it okay if I concentrate on these users only during the initial stages? I mean no one is forcing me to do that, it's my choice so I hope being bias may not be a question here. After all WP is my hobby. --Seabuckthorn♥12:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly! Wasted_Time_R, Sturmvogel_66, and Diannaa are all experienced reviewers who have specifically said that they welcome reviews by new reviewers, so any of them would be great choices. TonyTheTiger is experienced and fast to fix changes, but he can also be stubborn and perhaps a little unfriendly if he disagrees with you. Cirt is friendly and extremely prompt. SabreBD and GregJackP are both excellent writers, though they don't communicate much. Taylor_Trescott is always a good choice. JG66 and Figureskatingfan (Christine) are both wonderful writers, and they both communicate very well. – Quadell(talk)15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've summarised this page in my GAN notes for my future reference. Feel free to add anything I've missed. Most importantly, feel free to strike anything that should not be kept there because it can be accessed easily by others. Thanks for being so candid in your guidance overall! --Seabuckthorn♥16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After your "Yes, certainly!", I immediately took three more - Tyus Jones, George Campbell, and Frank Underwood. So hasty again! (Well, the problem is with the dog's tail here) .
Yes, that's okay with me. Feel free to graduate me anytime you think is appropriate. I'll simple move all discussion to your talk page and at the same time invite your suggestions in my sandbox for every draft I'm about to post. --Seabuckthorn♥13:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to reply to "we'll finish the third one before we start this one though, if that's okay with you". I'm fine with anything you suggest. I'll be glad to obey. However, it will need significantly more work than the other two in the pipeline. I've started working on the third one - the march - and will post my comments soon. --Seabuckthorn♥13:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). In order to provide a clearer and more informative introduction to the nonspecialist reader, I recommend the following revision :
Use a different heading for section Early life. This section hardly has anything before 2011 so the early is not appropriate.
Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. I recommend breaking up text in the Early life section and organizing content into separate sections.
Fix section Personal (MOS:PARAGRAPHS). The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Either this section should be merged into the previous section, or else more information on the personal life should be added.
Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs. Tables are a complex form of list. (MOS:TABLES). I recommend removing the table as most of the information is already covered in the lead and infobox.
I'm putting the article on hold. All the best!
I think all those are fine. If he disagrees with the Embed part, though, you should probably let that slide. It's possible that such tables are standard in articles on football players. The others are very good. Go for it! – Quadell(talk)02:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That draft looks excellent. I think it's a good idea to wait and see how he responds to the "embed" issue in the other GAN before posting this. I think all your points are good, but I would add the following:
As a 1a issue, there needs to be a space between "of the prior five years." and "On November 11".
Where the article says "over state powerhouses DeLaSalle — featuring Reid Travis — and Hopkins", there should not be spaces around em-dashes.
Abbreviations like "ppg." and "apg." should be spelled out or linked.
As a 1b issue, the lead is too short for an article of this size.
I've updated the above draft incorporating your comments. Did I miss anything? Well, as per my POV I felt that the only thing clear and concise in the article is the lead, but you're right as per GA criteria it needs to be expanded. I was reluctant to raise 1a issues especially with TonyTheTiger, given his attitude, and mainly because of this. --Seabuckthorn♥15:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great, and you didn't miss anything. I know what you mean about "the only thing clear and concise", and I got the same impression... but to be honest, I'm not 100% sure what an article on a high-school basketball player should look like. If I understood what makes some high-schooler sportspeople notable, perhaps I could better assess whether it's clear and concise or not. But as it is, I'm also hesitant to criticize, not because TonyTheTiger might be offended, but only because I'm not sure I'm right. (At any rate, I'm not sure what to recommend to make the prose clearer.) – Quadell(talk)19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of posting this review as well and putting the article on hold. Otherwise my mind will be engaged in this suspense. What if he turns out to be like SabreBD this time and shows no activity? Would I wait for two weeks then? That table issue is a minor one. If he objects, as you said, I'll just let it slide. What do you say? --Seabuckthorn♥01:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this. This march is seriously becoming a hurdle in my march. In the pursuit of collapsing it, I may collapse instead. Seriously, I'm going to party after I'm done with this march. --Seabuckthorn♥21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
