Talk:The Plain Dealer/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

Readership in lead doesn't match readership in the infobox.
The lead may not adequately summarize the content of the article.
"less than 50 years after Moses Cleaveland landed on the banks of the Cuyahoga River in The Flats" what does this have to do with the subject?
"It also assured readers that the stories that would formerly have appeared in the Sunday Magazine would be integrated into other areas of the paper." This needs to be rephrased or removed. Either the stories were integrated or they weren't; the statement that they assured readers of such doesn't add any information.
"On August 5, 2013, the Northeast Ohio Media Group launched and The Plain Dealer Publishing Company was formed. Northeast Ohio Media Group operates cleveland.com and Sun News and is responsible for all multimedia ad sales and marketing for The Plain Dealer, Sun News and cleveland.com. It also provides content to The Plain Dealer, cleveland.com and Sun News. The Plain Dealer Publishing Company provides content and publishes in print seven days a week. The company also provides production, distribution, finance, information technology, accounting and other support services for the Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group." This paragraph feels like coat rack information and is only tangentially related to the subject.
Why is awards and honors so high? Also, why is it in a list as opposed to prose? There must be something written about the content that earned them these awards.
The Bureaus section seems to be entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS
Major Sections (which should probably WP:USEPROSE), only cites one source, and it is for the discontinuation of one section.
The Design section cites no source.
The Employees section cites no source. I assume the source is the paper itself but that should be made explicit.
I'm also unclear why there's an employees section at all, and why it is a list rather than prose. Ideally we won't have an exhaustive list of everyone employed by them, and if we're going out of our way to mention the employees, we should probably say a little more about them.
"The Plain Dealer has been criticized by liberal columnists for staking out generally conservative positions on its editorial page, despite serving a predominantly Democratic readership base." This should be explicitly sourced. As it is likely controversial and contrary to expectations.
"The news coverage is generally more neutral, with national and international news often culled from wire services, including the New York Times'." This has no source.
Criticism and controversy sections tend to be non-neutral, and probably cherry picked. The question often is why they can't be incorporated into prose. Further, why is the largest section of prose only about controversies? Why is there no actual coverage of what the newspaper frequently writes about? I doubt that a two time pulitzer winning publication and winner of "numerous" AP awards can only have coverage of its controversies. While working to increase the prose size of the article, you may want to think about how the controversies can be worked into the newly expanded prose.
Fair use rational for the first August 7 image is not complete.
Relevence of the image on Candy is not apparent.

There are a number of dead links. While not explicitly disallowed, they make verification difficult, especially since a number of them have no access date and no other publication information beyond the title and a URL.

Results[edit]

Not listed This article is far from satisfying any of the GA criteria (except maybe being stable). This article has multiple uncited sections, a number the links are dead and not properly formatted to make verification easy, it needs to WP:USEPROSE more as much of the article is lists, it lacks coverage of the writing and coverage of the paper such as strengths or why it won those things in the list of awards, and it seems rather non-neutral as it gives WP:UNDUE weight, particularly to controversies despite the paper winning a number of awards for journalistic achievements, none of the included images conform to criterion 6. Further, much of this was brought up in the previous GA review and seems to not have been addressed (see diff between last reviewed version and this version). As such, I don't think putting it on hold will be productive. Address these issues and renominate and it will probably fair much better. If you have any questions, you can comment here or on my talk page. Happy editing! Wugapodes (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]