Talk:Gary Schiff/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 prose is good. The one problem is context: it assumes a local audience, where Wikipedia aims to be loosely accessible, at least, to a global audience. I recommend putting "American politician" or something along those lines in the first sentence, before mentioning anything specific to Minnesota. Similarly, in the first body paragraph I suggest you identify the location of Lewiston-Porter High School (Youngstown, NY). There are a few other stylistic quibbles but they're not part of the GA criteria.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout is fine, but the lead is insufficient. The lead should be at least a solid paragraph, maybe two, summarizing the most important points of each section. It doesn't have to be long but it should be able to stand on its own and explain what Schiff has done and why he matters, not just list the offices he's held. The lead should answer: who is he? what's his story?
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.	Well cited, although there's a slight link glitch (ref 9) which should be fixed.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are a number of instances where the source does not match the article. I'm only spot-checking but it happens quite a few times. "The theater reopened as the Cowles Center for Dance and the Performing Arts in September 2011 and hosted 110 performances in its first season." This is an example of what Wikipedia considers original synthesis (WP:SYNTH). The theater's success in 2011 was reported by a reliable source, but the source did not link this back to Schiff's work in 1990. The article should only refer to sources that specifically mention Schiff's efforts, not sources that may reflect long-term consequences of Schiff's work without mentioning him. "... a measure that permitted sidewalk cafes to use permanent outdoor furniture[19]" The source listed only indicates that he introduced this measure, not that it passed. It should say "would permit sidewalk cafes" unless there's a source showing it actually went into law. "He also sponsored ordinances that reduced the requirements of the Minneapolis Truth of Sale in Housing Program" The source only says he voted for this bill. "... added domestic partnerships to the Zoning Code's definition of "family" in terms of housing.[22]" The source listed doesn't appear to associate Schiff with this amendment at all.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The only glaring omission is his upbringing, everything pre-1990. The Buffalo News gives his father's name as Robert J. Schiffhauer ("Reporter's Notebook / Ambassador", April 6, 1989) and Gary's birth name (Gary J. Schiffhauer). The Star-Tribune confirms his birth name and birth place, and the fact that he's the youngest of six children. Other childhood information would be nice if you could find it, but at least this basic info should be included.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The paragraph about the Vikings stadium, which doesn't mention Schiff at all, is a little long. Maybe it could be worked into the following paragraph which does mention Schiff. The approval of the financing plan (2012) is mentioned in both paragraphs, for example.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The information is well cited and doesn't appear overly biased.
	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.	No problems.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a good biography of a local politician (a rarity on Wikipedia), and comes close to the GA criteria. I'll be happy to pass it if a few revisions are made. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for the review! None of these concerns seem too difficult to deal with, so I'll try and clean it up by next Sunday. I might note that, as there is a growing body of information pertaining to his mayoral campaign, I may write a new section covering that, especially considering that, as of now, it's mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. It'd be great if you could look that over in regard to the GA criteria once I get around to writing it (which will ideally be sooner than later). Thanks again! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this as of right now, hunting down better sources for a couple of statements and, once that's done, rewriting the lead. I believe everything else has been addressed. If I'm not completely done on Sunday, I should be by Monday. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 05:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that should do it. Any further thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've passed it as GA. —Designate (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]