|
Checklist[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- All issues addressed
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool only highlights quotations, spotchecks clear.
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Article is stable.
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Licensing issues have been resolved
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All concerns have been resolved.
First run[edit]
- "Before the AIDS crisis": this is a bio: why not a more conventional section title, like "early life and education"?
- Also, is there any information about the first 20 odd years of his life besides the cities he lived in?
- First sentence of the body should probably mention his name
- Can we link or explain "nurse practitioner"? It's not a term most folks will be familiar with.
- Sentence beginning "he was formally diagnosed is long and rather complex. I'd break it up, and say "The diagnosis later became known as..."
- "gay cancer" beginning to make its way round the city" Not sure I follow.
- Remove the honorific, please; if his position needs to be explained, it should be a "Mass, a doctor of ..."
- " in his "sister" persona as Sister Florence Nightmare RN" Not sure I follow
- Last sentence, third paragraph, second section, is missing a cite.
- I think we need a little background info on how the disparate diseases became known as an AIDS pandemic.
- "This became a regular column in the Sentinel" the "this" is confusing, as it was clearly not his quote. Why not just say "He began to write a regular column..."
- "fought to become more available" unclear why he had to fight
- I'm a little concerned by the use of three non-free images in the article, but I'm not well-versed enough to judge this, so pinging Nikkimaria: NM, can we justify three such images? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks, Nikkimaria: in that case, two images will have to be removed, though if the OTRS gets resolved, that could possibly be readded.
- I don't see why 3 non-Free, fair-use images are a problem here. The article is over 2000 words long and all 3 images have FURs. WP:GACR №6 refers to "images", plural, and WP:NFCCP №3a refers to "minimal number of items"; I think a single image for each of 2 of the 4 main article sections is pretty minimal. They illustrate key concepts in the article and I think the article would be diminished by their removal, particularly given there are no relevant Free images available. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 3a states that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". The identical and generic purpose of use statements for the latter two images don't support an argument of additional significant information being conveyed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a little concerned by the heavy use of quotes. I'd suggest limiting the use of quotes to particularly impactful, catchy, or pithy phrases: anything difficult to paraphrase. Most of the quotes here can be turned into prose without difficulty.
- It's a long time since I've read MOS:QUOTE and you're right, I'm clearly overusing quotes here. I've converted the two-paragraph quote from Callen into prose and moved the "careful synthesis" part into a footnote. The other 2 feel more appropriate as they are, I think. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm uncertain about the justification for capitalizing "People with Aids".
- Currently, the article seems to be claiming that Campbell organized the first even candlelight march, which seems a fairly exceptional claim; is it really justified?
- I've removed the comma and moved the reference, to make it clearer that the article is stating that he helped organise the first candlelit march about the AIDS Crisis, which is what the citation supports, rather than the implication that it was the first candlelit march on any subject. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "remember those who had died" died of AIDS, presumably, but you need to say so.
- "When the activists stormed the stage of the closing session to present the Denver Principles" More context is needed: why did they storm the stage? Which stage is this? Also, that sentence is missing something, grammatically.
- "plotting on the plane." bit melodramatic: and what were they plotting?
- "introducing AIDS to the heterosexual community" again, rather exceptional claim here. Are we really justified in saying that Heterosexual people were unaware of AIDS until that Newsweek article?
- "With Artie Felson, he heckled from the back" again, confusing to outsiders: slightly more detail needed.
- "and had lived for over 3½ years with what was, by then, called AIDS." Cite needed here.
- "Dr Conant" credentials need to be removed.
- I'd combine all the disparate small paragraphs in the legacy section into a single one, or two at most.
- I've grouped them thematically, so there's the 2 paragraphs about his death and funerary celebrations, then 1 paragraph with all the memorial stuff and 1 with the film, TV and mock-trials. That feels more coherent, I think. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional at the GA level, but to take this article further I really think you need some analysis of Campbell's impact on the LGBT rights/AIDS awareness movement.
- That's all I have for now: ping me when you have dealt with these. Vanamonde (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second run[edit]
- Okay, it's time for a relook, I think, though a couple of issues from above are still outstanding: the images, in particular.
- I think the lead could stand to be a little longer: I'd suggest it be two paragraphs, at least.
- The last line of the lead uses an editorial voice that is too heavy for Wikipedia. I'd suggest using in-text attribution: "described by X as..."
- I was summarising a very different tone of voice that doesn't work well as a quote, so I've removed "optimistic", which I think is the word that pushes the editorial voice a bit too far. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Having been in the initial wave of gay liberation in Seattle" this is still assuming some inside knowledge on the part of the reader. We either need a link here, or need to rephrase this as "Campbell lived in Seattle when that city saw..." or something like that.
- "By 1981, he enrolled" this reads funny to me...shouldn't it be "By 1981 he had enrolled", or "In 1981 he enrolled"?
- I think the second paragraph of "diagnosis" needs a date mentioned in there somewhere to anchor it.
- "gay newspapers" is this an accepted term? Do we mean publication targeted at the LGBT community(ies)?
- " invitation of Drs Conant and Volberding" the "Drs" isn't needed. There's also another "Dr." later on.
- Second section, third paragraph, first sentence is far too long and complicated.
- I'm not sure which paragraph you mean, though it might have been the sentence about the candlelit march, so I've reworded that and split it in twain. The sentence about the Clinical Nursing Conference in DC in October 1983 had similar problems, so I've reworded that one too, which should also help with the proseline. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The "wider activism" section has issues with WP:PROSELINE. A little rewording should take care of it.
- You could link homophobia, I think.
- "Two days later, Castro Street was closed as 1,000 people turned out to mourn Campbell and celebrate his life." To me, this reads like journalese from his obituary...can me turn this into drier prose, perhaps?
- Very last sentence is missing a citation.
- @OwenBlacker: I've finished a second read-through, just so you know. Since this has been open for a while, let's try to finish this as soon as possible. Vanamonde (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrapping up[edit]
-
- Thank you, Nikkimaria. @OwenBlacker: I think there's two ways to do this: you could go ask at MCQ, and try to get consensus for the image; the review would have to remain on hold in the interim. Or (and this is what I'd prefer) you remove the image for now, I pass the review, and you look into the image licensing at your leisure, with the understanding that you will not put it back in the article without a discussion/approval at some relevant venue. What would you like to do? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
