Talk:Olds, Wortman & King/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 20:18, 7 December 2011 (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. | "The building remained vacant for some time." How much time is some time? Too vague, please clarify.
"renamed all of its stores Rhodes Department Stores, consistent with its own name change to Rhodes Western" I do not understand this, do you mean they renamed all of their department stores to Rhodes Department Stores? "established under a different name in 1851" What was the different name? "the most exciting development in downtown [Portland] merchandising in several decades" Wiki links use two brackets, not one. You should write [[Portland]] which produces Portland, not [Portland]. "at Front and Oak streets" What are front and oak streets? "but never very far." How far do you classify "very far" Please clarify and be specific for statements that are likely to be challenged. The grammar in the article could be improved. I would suggest asking for a copy edit at WP:GOCE. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | "was popular with shoppers from the very start" Popular is a peacock term, please do not use peacock terms. (How can you prove it was popular? I would suggest removing this word.)
"was a significant blow to the Galleria" Significant is a peacock term, please remove it. (What makes it so significant?) "supplanted by various other uses." Various is too vague! Who were the other users? "Moving several times within the downtown Portland area" Several is too vague, how many times did they move? "and continued to thrive for several years." How many years? Too vague. "Olds & King again in 1944; and Rhodes in 1960." I do not understand this, can you clarify it? Does it mean it was renamed again? "It is currently home to the Portland location of the" The word current becomes outdated, please re word this. "small store established in 1851" How small was the store? Please clarify! "purchased into it" Do you mean bought into it? Invested into it? Please clarify! "large new store" How large was the store? Please clarify! "within a few years" How many years? "had expanded westwards" Did they only expand to the west? The west of Portland? Please be more specific. "were considered very modern for the time, at least in a city the size of Portland." I would consider removing this, it is very bias and hard to measure. How can you measure how "modern" something is? "relatively simple terra cotta designs" Too vague, please clarify. "a tall flagpole." How tall is the flag pole? "became a Liberty House store in late 1973" I would suggest wiki linking Liberty House. "floors 4 and 5" Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out. "and fewer and fewer shoppers were coming to downtown" How many is "fewer annd fewer" can you be more specific please.
|
| 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. | FN1: Multi page PDFs need page numbers.
FN2: You cite this 27 times, for each time, you need to specify a page in each citation. FN3: This needs to be cited more specifically. You should use {{cite news}}. FN4: Is a web reference and should be formatted as such with {{cite web}}. FN5: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN6: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN7: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN8: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN9: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN10: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN11: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. FN13: Please format it correctly. You should use {{cite news}}. |
|
|
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). | "A MAX light rail station, Galleria/SW 10th Avenue station, was opened next to the building in 1986, across the street from its Morrison Street side. Since 2001, the Portland Streetcar line has passed the Galleria's west side, on 10th Avenue." Unsourced, please provide a citation.
"John Wilson purchased the store in 1856" Do you have a citation for this? |
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Possibly, see above. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The lead section could be longer to summarise the article better. |
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
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. | This article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to WP:Peer review again and then please renominate at WP:GAN. There are too many issues to be resolved and I do not think that if I put it on hold they would be resolved in time as the issues are not minor, they are quite major. I am sure the article will pass after the issues have been resolved. |
- I should have read the article more closely. Thank you for pointing out all the issues so I can fix them sometime. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Although nominating this was not my idea, and I expected some issues to be raised by the reviewer, I have to say I disagree with several of the points raised in the review, and in my opinion the reviewer also made some mistakes (mistakes that I don't feel are an indication that the article is not sufficiently clear). For example, in my view, it's fine for the lead to say the store moved "several" times within the downtown area, because the details are given in the body of the article, and the lead is supposed to summarize. Under 1a, fourth item: The quotation from The Oregonian is not intended to include a wikilinked "Portland"; the city name was not included in the original article, but was added when quoting the article for Wikipedia, to give proper context, and single brackets are proper usage in such cases. The reviewer says "Liberty House" should be wiklinked in one phrase, but it was already linked just eight words earlier, so his/her suggestion is contrary to WP editing guidelines. In "supplanted by various other uses": Again, some detail is given later in the article, in the appropriate place, and very little detail has been published. I suppose the phrase could be revised to read simply "other uses", but I don't see that as an improvement. That it was "various" uses has been cited, so lack of sourcing is not an issue there. Some of the terms and phrases the reviewer called peacock terms were just paraphrasing of information from the cited, reliable sources – e.g., that the Galleria was "popular" and that the opening of Pioneer Place was major "blow" to the Galleria. Those are not extreme, inflammatory phrases unsuitable for an encyclopedia, so if reliable sources have been cited for them – which they have been – why does the reviewer feel they should be removed? Phrases expressing opinion are perfectly fine in WP if respected, reliable sources are cited for them, are they not? Floors 4 and 5: The numbers should be spelled out? Really? For floor numbers? Floor numbers are normally expressed in numerals. If Wikipedia's manual of style says otherwise, I might support changing it, but personally I'm not inclined to spend time looking for that info. in the MoS. I agree that multipage PDFs used for several citations ought to cite specific page numbers. I know it's possible to do that in the way that doesn't repeat all the common details (name of document, etc.) for every note, but personally I've not yet learned how to do that, particularly in a document (such as this one) that does not use conventional page-number sequencing (page numbers restart at 1 in every section). I hope someone who does know will tackle that point. Many of the details the reviewer requests are not given in any of the several newspaper articles and other sources I reviewed and cited, such as the name of the 1851 store and the height of the flag poles. If every such detail the reviewer requested is considered necessary for the article to reach GA, then the article will not ever reach GA. Some of the details he/she requested have probably never been published anywhere. (However, I realize that the reviewer may not have been saying that every one of those omitted details are essential for reaching GA status.) The phrase "purchased into" it is taken directly from the cited source (NRHP nom., section 8, p. 2, bottom; everything else was carefully paraphrased), and I have no information enabling me to make it more specific.
I certainly do accept that some of the reviewer's points are valid, but overall, I feel this review sets the "bar" a little too high – and I'm speaking as someone whose standards are much higher than those of the average WP editor. Perhaps it's mainly just my inexperience at taking articles from "B" class to GA, but if review this is typical, I don't think I'll be nominating any more articles for GA. Maybe someone else will overhaul the article, but for the record I (the person who carried out a 7x expansion of it) don't have nearly enough interest to address such a long list of issues, so I'm not intending to spend any more time on the article. SJ Morg (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Although nominating this was not my idea, and I expected some issues to be raised by the reviewer, I have to say I disagree with several of the points raised in the review, and in my opinion the reviewer also made some mistakes (mistakes that I don't feel are an indication that the article is not sufficiently clear). For example, in my view, it's fine for the lead to say the store moved "several" times within the downtown area, because the details are given in the body of the article, and the lead is supposed to summarize. Under 1a, fourth item: The quotation from The Oregonian is not intended to include a wikilinked "Portland"; the city name was not included in the original article, but was added when quoting the article for Wikipedia, to give proper context, and single brackets are proper usage in such cases. The reviewer says "Liberty House" should be wiklinked in one phrase, but it was already linked just eight words earlier, so his/her suggestion is contrary to WP editing guidelines. In "supplanted by various other uses": Again, some detail is given later in the article, in the appropriate place, and very little detail has been published. I suppose the phrase could be revised to read simply "other uses", but I don't see that as an improvement. That it was "various" uses has been cited, so lack of sourcing is not an issue there. Some of the terms and phrases the reviewer called peacock terms were just paraphrasing of information from the cited, reliable sources – e.g., that the Galleria was "popular" and that the opening of Pioneer Place was major "blow" to the Galleria. Those are not extreme, inflammatory phrases unsuitable for an encyclopedia, so if reliable sources have been cited for them – which they have been – why does the reviewer feel they should be removed? Phrases expressing opinion are perfectly fine in WP if respected, reliable sources are cited for them, are they not? Floors 4 and 5: The numbers should be spelled out? Really? For floor numbers? Floor numbers are normally expressed in numerals. If Wikipedia's manual of style says otherwise, I might support changing it, but personally I'm not inclined to spend time looking for that info. in the MoS. I agree that multipage PDFs used for several citations ought to cite specific page numbers. I know it's possible to do that in the way that doesn't repeat all the common details (name of document, etc.) for every note, but personally I've not yet learned how to do that, particularly in a document (such as this one) that does not use conventional page-number sequencing (page numbers restart at 1 in every section). I hope someone who does know will tackle that point. Many of the details the reviewer requests are not given in any of the several newspaper articles and other sources I reviewed and cited, such as the name of the 1851 store and the height of the flag poles. If every such detail the reviewer requested is considered necessary for the article to reach GA, then the article will not ever reach GA. Some of the details he/she requested have probably never been published anywhere. (However, I realize that the reviewer may not have been saying that every one of those omitted details are essential for reaching GA status.) The phrase "purchased into" it is taken directly from the cited source (NRHP nom., section 8, p. 2, bottom; everything else was carefully paraphrased), and I have no information enabling me to make it more specific.
- I never said you have to correct every single issue, and also, why are you so angry with me? They are mere suggestions, you don't have to address everything, and everyone makes mistakes (with the wiki linking). Puffin Let's talk! 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have very little experience with GA reviews, as I acknowledged, but my impression from those I've read is that the reviewer expects the vast majority (sometimes all) of the points he has raised to be corrected before he will approve the nomination. Whether that impression is accurate is something I don't know. I'm not angry, just frustrated and a little critical. Sorry if it came off badly (particularly my comment on floor numbers, which I should have toned down; I almost went back in afterwards to do so). SJ Morg (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)