GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Power~enwiki ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The "Production figures" table's style and placing could be improved, I'll try to fix this myself. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
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). | The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio detector only finds the direct quotes included in the article, which are correctly quoted and referenced. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The "Motorsport" section is so short as to feel unnecessary. I'm not sure what it can be merged with , though. Also, having coverage from both the 1970s and the 2000s in "Reception and criticism" is jarring. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. The article isn't perfect, but it is Good. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC) |
Discussion with a blocked user. Almost all of this is discussed extensively in the talk archives. I'll re-check a few of the more credible points later today.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Thank you for beginning the GA review.
The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991):
Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF ( talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Another area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20.
PrefectF ( talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @ Yamla: I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference HughD ( talk · contribs)). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee ( talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Power~enwiki ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The "Production figures" table's style and placing could be improved, I'll try to fix this myself. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
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). | The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio detector only finds the direct quotes included in the article, which are correctly quoted and referenced. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The "Motorsport" section is so short as to feel unnecessary. I'm not sure what it can be merged with , though. Also, having coverage from both the 1970s and the 2000s in "Reception and criticism" is jarring. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. The article isn't perfect, but it is Good. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC) |
Discussion with a blocked user. Almost all of this is discussed extensively in the talk archives. I'll re-check a few of the more credible points later today.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Thank you for beginning the GA review.
The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991):
Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF ( talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Another area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20.
PrefectF ( talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @ Yamla: I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference HughD ( talk · contribs)). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee ( talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)