Talk:Getty Villa/GA4

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Will begin shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last review performed amounts to a rubber stamp or Quick Pass without proper review in order to pass the article after the review before that found the contributing and nominating editor to be "noncompliant" in wiki policy, procedure, guideline and Bright-line rules. The editor states, "I feel that this article has previously been unfairly failed due to conflicts wirh editors. I also do believe that GA is oft being treated as if it were an FA nomination. This exceeds the quality of any other source or encyclopedia on the topic, and therefore I should pass it with no further review. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"

Per Wiki When you have nominated an article, the only way for it to pass is for a reviewer to look over the article and make sure that it complies with the GA criteria and meets other MoS guidelines such as an adequate lead, correct grammar, and reliable sourcing. This was not done in the last by the last reviewer, as he admits and feels that as long as it fits his POV on what is an average article on Wikipedia it should be listed as GA.

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 has some issues. Mostly in that it is not written in an encyclopedic tone, seems to wander a bit and lacks focus. Redundant mentions of the same word or name read odd. The first and second sentences should be combined in at least the information it holds. The article is about this museum and therefor should state that outright and upfront in the first sentence. "The Getty Villa in Pacific Palisades, California, USA, is an educational center and museum dedicated to the study of the arts and cultures of ancient Greece, Rome, and Eturia and is one of two locations of the J. Paul Getty Museum. HOWEVER as this is a copyright issue being nearly the same thing as the Villa website it appears that simple text surgery was conducted.[1]. A complete rewriting is required of this and the whole of the article because it is clear to this reviewer that a good deal of copyright issues still appear. Copy paste editing can't be hidden with this type of simple text surgery. Original prose is required per brightline rules. No exceptions.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is not broad enough. It should be an overview of the article and seems to be lacking much information that could and should be in the lead section.
	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.	No, it's not factual or accurate. The first line is not supported by the two website references and they have no reason to be there. One is a primary source, but does not support the claim made. The other is a newspaper article. It does not support the claim either. Getty never lived in the house. It was not his "Home" and the newspaper article establishes that, and that there was a museum on the grounds but does not support the claim of location. This is an encyclopedia. The references must support the claim in all ways but written with original prose. A check of references shows that they are not being used properly and do not support claims being made.
	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).	Why is 1974 referenced? Wait until a claim is made before adding a reference. Why is there a reference in the information box? There should be no references in the information box. If the information is not in the article it shouldn't be in the box. If the information is in the article...that's where the reference will go.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is mostly Original Research and seems to blatantly ignore the source material.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects seem to be covered
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focus issues need to be addressed throughout the article. It jumps around a bit and seems to lack cohesion.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutrality is questioned with so much copy paste from other sources. Reads like a brochure because much comes from the Getty site.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	4 edits since March...seems stable enough.
	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.	All images comply with MOS and all image guidelines...except one. They are not for illustration. If they do not pertain to specific prose in the article they are simply there for decoration. Either add prose in the article or place the images into the gallery.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not a fan of galleries nor are a lot of editors, but not something that needs to change to be listed GA. FA maybe.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Much work needed to be listed.

It is very strange that you did not provide the prior nominator with notice of your reassessment. I am always willing to work with editors to adress their concerns. The above reassessment is simply incorrect when he says "Getty never lived in this house." He lived in the house prior to it evolving into the grounds of a museum. No specific statement is cited as being POV pushing. There are numerous sources for the fact that Getty lived there. I do not understand his general claim that the sources cited do not support the article. Racepacket (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He didn't follow procedure at all and didn't even create or use the proper review page. He didn't feel the need to notify me....so why would you think I should be obligated to notify him?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better question...since you bring it up, would be: why someone would quick pass an article for GA when a reviewer had made a fully detailed list of notes and most were simply ignored by the both the nominator and quick pass reviewer. I now feel extremely uncomfortable with your nominations and believe it is possible that you feel a slight obligation on the part of others to pass your articles within your interpretations.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by a "quick pass," the reviewer conducted an independent review of the article and found that it met the criteria. I respect your opinion and understand that people can have different impressions of the same article. However, I do not see how you can conclude that the article was inaccurate. Getty did live in his home (which was a very large ranch house.) He then built a wing on one side to house his art collection. Later, in 1974 a new building modeled after an Italian villa opened as a museum. Perhaps you are reading sources which correctly say that Getty never visited the 1974 villa building (which is down the hill from his house.) There is nothing to prohibit having footnotes in an infobox, nor is there a requirement that the infobox cannot contain information unless it is also repeated in the article. In fact, the GA criteria have been repeatedly interpreted as not even requiring an infoxbox at all. The photos in aligned with the text relate to the prose. Perhaps you should take another look at your concerns. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chart above asks why "It was opened in 1974,[6]" has a footnote. The answer is that fn 6 is the source of the fact that it was opened in 1974.
The lead was expanded on March 2 to reflect all sections of the article. Is there something that the reviewer feels is missing from the current lead?
The review under Criteria 1(a) says, "The article is about this museum and therefor should state that outright and upfront in the first sentence." But the first sentence does exactly that: "The Getty Villa in Pacific Palisades, California, USA, is one of two locations of the J. Paul Getty Museum."
"There should be no references in the information box." - Please cite a wikipedia policy prohibiting references in the infobox.
"All images comply with MOS and all image guidelines...except one." - It is not clear if you are troubled by one image or one guideline. I do not read the GA Criteria as applying all image guidelines. As I understand criteria 6(b) "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." I do not see any images in the article which fail to be relevant to the Getty Villa. I can understand that people may differ on "relevance", so please explain your concern.
"Reads like a brochure...." Wikipedia has a number of websites covering the Getty Trust and its programs. These articles cover the Getty Trust's recent fiscal challenges and cutbacks, an investigation by the California Attorney General, repatriation disputes with foreign countries, etc. This particular article discusses the repatriation of 40 art objects that were looted from Italy. The other controversies are covered in other articles where they are more relevant. This is not a "puff piece."
I don't understand how an article can be both a close paraphrase of he Getty website and the "article is mostly Original Research" at the same time. Racepacket (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]