Talk:Bobbi Campbell/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review 2[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Looks like this has been waiting for a while, so I'll do my best to get this done quickly. At first glance, it looks good. Vanamonde (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a solid article, comments mostly to do with clarifying the piece for a broader audience. Vanamonde (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. 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.
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Article is stable.
  6. 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:
  7. 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"?
    • I did think that, but moving to San Francisco at the age of 29 felt like it was stretching "early life" rather. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is there any information about the first 20 odd years of his life besides the cities he lived in?
    • Not that I could find beyond "having been in the initial wave of gay liberation in Seattle". — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • Before it was known as AIDS or GRID, it was referred to as a "gay cancer" — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • Fixed; thank you. I hadn't spotted the addition of that sentence. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need a little background info on how the disparate diseases became known as an AIDS pandemic.
    • I'm not sure that this article is the best place for that, surely? — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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..."
    • It was indeed his quote. I've reworded that next sentence nonetheless. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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]
  • No - with the given information only one would be justified, likely the Newsweek image. However, I see another has an OTRS pending so it's possible it may be released? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 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]
  • Hey, I'm having a tough time of things right now, so I'm gonna have to come back to this in a few days. I'll give some more thought to the FURs in the meantime. Thanks :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 22:13, 24 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".
    • In some places, this is a reference to the People With AIDS movement; I've corrected the capitalisation where that's not the case. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • That feels a little repetitive to my eyes, but I've made the change to make it explicitly clear. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • I've reworded that some and added some more context; better? — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plotting on the plane." bit melodramatic: and what were they plotting?
    • I wouldn't necessarily consider "plotting" to be melodramatic, but it's the word Callen used; I've reworded to make that clearer — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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?
    • Yes, pretty much so; I've expanded (with references) on how sparse mainstream coverage of the AIDS crisis was and reworded slightly to make the claim more accurate. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Artie Felson, he heckled from the back" again, confusing to outsiders: slightly more detail needed.
    • I've reworded, which I think makes this clearer — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had lived for over 3½ years with what was, by then, called AIDS." Cite needed here.
    • I don't follow; that's just maths, counting how long since his KS diagnosis... — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • Yes, I think you're probably right; I'll give it some thought after we're done with GA things. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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've added more-detailed purposes to the FURs on the images; I think that should make them acceptable here per WP:NFCI 8 and 10. I've also added a Free image of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, both to illustrate that and to add another image to leaven the long prose. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • I've expanded that some, as well as rewording it; there's a little more in the reference I was already citing to expand upon his time in Seattle by a couple of sentences. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • I've moved a sentence up from the next paragraph (which I should have done already, on reflection) and applied the date there. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gay newspapers" is this an accepted term? Do we mean publication targeted at the LGBT community(ies)?
    • It is; I'd certainly refer to "the gay press", for example, but I've reworded to make that less ambiguous — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 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.
    • I think I've improved this here, but I'm happy to take another look if you still have any pticlr concerns. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
    • I think it's more my own tone of voice, to be honest; I've reworded it. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very last sentence is missing a citation.
    • That sentence was added by an IP address several years ago and I can't find anything to back it up, so I've removed it. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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]

  • Okay, I'd say this is looking good: but I'm unsure of my own judgement on the image licensing issue, and so I'm going to ping Nikkimaria once again. Nikki, sorry for bothering you, but do you think the expanded rationales here and here are sufficient? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinical Nursing Conference yes. The other I'm not convinced of. Perhaps seek another opinion at WP:MCQ? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Thanks: things look good now, so passing this. Well done. Vanamonde (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your help is getting it there :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobbi_Campbell/GA2&oldid=839023170"