Talk:Frank Jenner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Neelix

Initial comments: This is a very strong GA candidate. Immediately, I notice a minor overlinking problem. WP:OVERLINKING cautions us not to link "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations" as well as "everyday words understood by most readers in context". You should look through the article and unlink words like Christian, insane, New York, exaggeration, etc., as well as duplicate links, such as Evangelism linked twice in the lead. None of this is a requirement for GA status, but I thought I'd mention it, for the improvement of the article.

Also, I have made some copy-edits for grammar fixes or prose improvements. [1][2][3][4] Some of these are just my opinion. If you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss. The following are issues I've identified.

• Clarity: "Jessie developed a peptic ulcer because of their lack of money". This isn't clear. Could they not afford prevention or treatment? Or does Wilson say the stress of poverty caused it? (Stress doesn't actually cause peptic ulcers.)

• Focus: The statement that Jenner "normally went to sleep around 9:30 PM" seems to come out of nowhere. It doesn't seem important enough to mention.

• Lingo: "Stanton felt convicted for several months afterwards" is contemporary Christian lingo. Others might be confused, wondering if legal troubles were involved.

• Clarity: The lead says Jenner "had not previously known that even one of the people he had talked to had converted". But the body gives examples of people who immediately converted, and so words it differently ("had remained a Christian beyond their initial profession of faith" and "living their lives as Christians as a result of his evangelism").

• Repetition: Jenner's evangelistic technique is fully described in the "Evangelism" section. The "Discovery by Francis Dixon" section describes the stories of 5 converts (3 named, 2 unnamed), using similar language for each ("had become a Christian as a result of meeting Jenner", "the episode in which Stanton had met Jenner", "had been walking down George Street and had been asked Jenner's question"), but it doesn't feel repetitious yet. But in the last paragraph of that section, it describes 4 more people using the same sort of language ("had become a Christian because of Jenner", "had converted because of Jenner", "had also become a Christian because of Jenner's question"), but doesn't even name them, calling them "another person", "another", "an Australian missionary", and "an Australian". Since their identities aren't important, those sentences only serve to repeat information already given. I think that final paragraph of "Discovery by Francis Dixon" can be greatly simplified. Perhaps something like this? "After returning from Australia, Dixon went on to discover more people who had become Christians because of Jenner in Bournemouth, Cumbria, India, and Jamaica. By 1979, Dixon had discovered 10 people..." I know, it's a major cut, but I think it's warranted.

• Clarity: Jenner "went into retirement". But last I heard, he was "often unemployed". Do you mean he stopped asking people questions on the street? If so, I don't think "retirement is the right word.

• Clarity: "His body was given a police escort to the burial". What's the significance of that? Was that normal procedure, or was he thought controversial enough to tempt trouble, or what?

• NPOV: This bit is extremely tricky, but we have to present all notable views fairly, even if you're certain that some are false. This article relies almost entirely on Wilson and Wilkinson, and calls other versions "exaggerated", "false", "apocryphal", "neither ... true", and "inaccurate"... and that's just in one paragraph. In all, I count 14 times the article uses some form of "inaccurate" when describing some of the sources. Now I'm not saying those deserve equal weight; that wouldn't be appropriate either. But you'll have to find some way of achieving NPOV, and it could be a challenge. Consider these sorts of changes: "elements of some stories contradicted others" instead of "various false elements were introduced", "this description is contradicted by interviews with family members" in place of "neither of these descriptions is true", "containing this description" instead of "containing this inaccurate description", "alternate accounts of Jenner's life" rather than "exaggerated and inaccurate accounts of Jenner's life", etc. This applies to the summary in the lead as well.

• Images: Most of the images are fine, but File:Stace001.jpg might not be free, and I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. (I don't think it's particularly important here, anyway.)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   All issues have been resolved.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead and layout are excellent.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Beautiful reference section

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   All issues have been resolved.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   All issues have been resolved.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   All issues have been resolved.

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

   Usage is appropriate, and captions are excellent

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article passes all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it to GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent changes so far! – Quadell ^(talk) 19:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this good article nomination, and for beginning to cross off your concerns so quickly after I began addressing them. There are two issues you have not yet crossed off: the retirement statement and the police escort statement. I have reworded the former to clarify that Jenner retired from IBM; while he was often unemployed in the interwar period, he was employed by the Royal Australian Navy for the duration of World War II and was employed with IBM from the end of the war until his retirement. I have also clarified the statement about the police escort, explaining that it was a gesture in recognition that Jenner had befriended many police officers in his later years. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Great work, Neelix. All the issues I found have been thoroughly resolved. I hope I can work with you again in the future. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)