GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This is GA review #1
I have selected this article to review because it is the one waiting the longest for a GA review, and because I have a small amount of expertise in the area which is the focus of the foundation. North8000 ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Two of the images (non-free, the foundation logo and the cover of the Freeman) need fair use rationales for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
One of my first impressions is that while, at first glance, it appears to be heavily referenced, after spending about 15 minutes attempting to follow references in about 5 places, I wasn't able to find specific verification of anything. For example, after the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead, there are 7 cites. The first 3 of them point to 3 references that list 35 page numbers and then to next 4 go to either entire website sections or entire documents. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
While I changed it a little to start the fix, lets take the first sentence as an example. Before I tweaked it it said: "Established in 1946 to study and advance classical liberalism, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-market organization in the United States". This contains three main statements
Now lets say somebody wants to look at the cites to confirm this. An analogy I use is if you ask the question "can you give me them name of a good barber" and instead of answering you, they unload a dump truck load of phone books onto your front lawn and say "it's all there" . While it may look like they gave you more "information" than you asked for, defining "information" being an answer to your question, they have given you zero information. The same situation is sort of present with the cites/references in this article. For the above sentence the article gives SEVEN references; let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is trying to follow the cites to verify the statements (using the numbers as of today, 11/28/12)
No one thing above (including the multi-page references) is absolutely wrong, but the overall "sum" of all of things is not so good. And there is no one "right" solution. But if you would just find 1 or 2 specific places that support what is in that sentence, and cite those, and get rid of the rest I think that would be a good simple way forward. I suspect that if this practice is used in the article, cutting down those large chains of cite numbers, that the issue of having a large amount of pages on each reference will also automatically get reduced. But, if not, or if you prefer a different approach, there IS a way to cite individual pages without having to repeat all of the reference information. An example of doing this on a large scale is at SS Edmund Fitzgerald. An example of doing this on a small scale / "mixed" basis (just on one reference, the Donaldson reference) is at Folk music. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I find the coverage of the topic to be rather spotty. A look at the outline for the article is a good indicator:
1 History
2 Programs
2.1 Seminars
2.2 Evenings at FEE
2.3 Publications
And "History" really doesn't cover the history....just a bit on the founding and and going through who key subsequent people are. (That's just a very inaccurate summary of mine)
So one thought is "where are the other missing sections?"
The first paragraph of the lead seems like a brief summary of a missing section.
Take us a bit more through its history and evolution. Also, it is a facility? One can't tell from reading the article.
My feeling is that this article is going to need a lot of work to become a Good Article. It's a great topic and I'd be happy to help some. If there are folks actively involved I'd be happy to make some more specific suggestions and also help implement them, at least the type of help that doesn't take a lot of outside research. Maybe we could get through all of that work during this GA review cycle. Are there involved folks who are up for this effort. ? Again, I'd be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Reviewer.
BTW, I may be a bit more experienced but I'm not perfect. When I edit, I'm working as an editor, not a reviewer. Feel free to revert, disagree, etc.. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As indicated, I'd be happy to help on the article to a certain extent. Based on that "extent" this is going to need the involvement of a person who is willing and able to access and dig into those sources which have been cited a large number of times. I think that me and that person together could untangle the sourcing issues here. But without that I don't seeing this getting to where I could pass it. Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources? North8000 ( talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
It has been two weeks since there has been any action on this review, either here or editing on the article. Is work going to resume soon? If the article still has a significant amount of work remaining to achieve a GA level, perhaps it should be concluded; the review is over seven weeks old at this point. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am sadly forced to non-pass this article at this time. I say "sadly" for a multitude of reasons. Able has done a lot of work on it, albeit while "missing the point" on what I have been asking for since November 28th. This is a very interesting and worthwhile topic; I was willing to substantially help here as well, but was stymied by the fact that nobody was doing the part that I am not able to do, which is finding specific support for "cited" statements in the off-line references used (and the heavily used ones are all off-line). I have been asking for this many times since November 28th, and not a single one has been produced. This means that I see no route to getting this fixed within the time frame of a GA review, doubly so for one which I started the review on last November. Abel, you are to be congratulated and thanked for your efforts here. If there is a way that I can help at the article via working on it or providing feedback, or an expedited review after it's fixed up, please ping me....I'd be happy to. I'd love to see this article get fixed up and then be resubmitted for and pass as a Wikipedia Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
End of Good Article Review #1
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This is GA review #1
I have selected this article to review because it is the one waiting the longest for a GA review, and because I have a small amount of expertise in the area which is the focus of the foundation. North8000 ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Two of the images (non-free, the foundation logo and the cover of the Freeman) need fair use rationales for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
One of my first impressions is that while, at first glance, it appears to be heavily referenced, after spending about 15 minutes attempting to follow references in about 5 places, I wasn't able to find specific verification of anything. For example, after the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead, there are 7 cites. The first 3 of them point to 3 references that list 35 page numbers and then to next 4 go to either entire website sections or entire documents. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
While I changed it a little to start the fix, lets take the first sentence as an example. Before I tweaked it it said: "Established in 1946 to study and advance classical liberalism, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-market organization in the United States". This contains three main statements
Now lets say somebody wants to look at the cites to confirm this. An analogy I use is if you ask the question "can you give me them name of a good barber" and instead of answering you, they unload a dump truck load of phone books onto your front lawn and say "it's all there" . While it may look like they gave you more "information" than you asked for, defining "information" being an answer to your question, they have given you zero information. The same situation is sort of present with the cites/references in this article. For the above sentence the article gives SEVEN references; let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is trying to follow the cites to verify the statements (using the numbers as of today, 11/28/12)
No one thing above (including the multi-page references) is absolutely wrong, but the overall "sum" of all of things is not so good. And there is no one "right" solution. But if you would just find 1 or 2 specific places that support what is in that sentence, and cite those, and get rid of the rest I think that would be a good simple way forward. I suspect that if this practice is used in the article, cutting down those large chains of cite numbers, that the issue of having a large amount of pages on each reference will also automatically get reduced. But, if not, or if you prefer a different approach, there IS a way to cite individual pages without having to repeat all of the reference information. An example of doing this on a large scale is at SS Edmund Fitzgerald. An example of doing this on a small scale / "mixed" basis (just on one reference, the Donaldson reference) is at Folk music. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I find the coverage of the topic to be rather spotty. A look at the outline for the article is a good indicator:
1 History
2 Programs
2.1 Seminars
2.2 Evenings at FEE
2.3 Publications
And "History" really doesn't cover the history....just a bit on the founding and and going through who key subsequent people are. (That's just a very inaccurate summary of mine)
So one thought is "where are the other missing sections?"
The first paragraph of the lead seems like a brief summary of a missing section.
Take us a bit more through its history and evolution. Also, it is a facility? One can't tell from reading the article.
My feeling is that this article is going to need a lot of work to become a Good Article. It's a great topic and I'd be happy to help some. If there are folks actively involved I'd be happy to make some more specific suggestions and also help implement them, at least the type of help that doesn't take a lot of outside research. Maybe we could get through all of that work during this GA review cycle. Are there involved folks who are up for this effort. ? Again, I'd be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Reviewer.
BTW, I may be a bit more experienced but I'm not perfect. When I edit, I'm working as an editor, not a reviewer. Feel free to revert, disagree, etc.. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As indicated, I'd be happy to help on the article to a certain extent. Based on that "extent" this is going to need the involvement of a person who is willing and able to access and dig into those sources which have been cited a large number of times. I think that me and that person together could untangle the sourcing issues here. But without that I don't seeing this getting to where I could pass it. Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources? North8000 ( talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
It has been two weeks since there has been any action on this review, either here or editing on the article. Is work going to resume soon? If the article still has a significant amount of work remaining to achieve a GA level, perhaps it should be concluded; the review is over seven weeks old at this point. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am sadly forced to non-pass this article at this time. I say "sadly" for a multitude of reasons. Able has done a lot of work on it, albeit while "missing the point" on what I have been asking for since November 28th. This is a very interesting and worthwhile topic; I was willing to substantially help here as well, but was stymied by the fact that nobody was doing the part that I am not able to do, which is finding specific support for "cited" statements in the off-line references used (and the heavily used ones are all off-line). I have been asking for this many times since November 28th, and not a single one has been produced. This means that I see no route to getting this fixed within the time frame of a GA review, doubly so for one which I started the review on last November. Abel, you are to be congratulated and thanked for your efforts here. If there is a way that I can help at the article via working on it or providing feedback, or an expedited review after it's fixed up, please ping me....I'd be happy to. I'd love to see this article get fixed up and then be resubmitted for and pass as a Wikipedia Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
End of Good Article Review #1