Talk:Richard Benjamin Harrison/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First things first... Why isn't Chumlee getting the nomination first. I'm disappointed, Bonkers.

Cos' I didn't write that one. Chumlee is cooler though hehe

I'll review this GAN. I should be able to start with some initial thoughts soon. PrairieKid (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Initial Thoughts

This is the section where I complain...

Lead

• Lots of citations in the lead

-Citations don't need to be in the lead, and they're a little crowded there. (So begins my nitpickiness...)

No other complaints. Seems good so far.

• In the infobox "Other names", I don't believe "nickname" is necessary for one unless it's used for all three, as they're all nicknames. Also, the infobox says Harrison was born in Danville, Virginia: if this is accurate, it also belongs in the Early Life section with appropriate sourcing; if not, then it shouldn't be here. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they are all nicknames, and should be included. However, I do think the (Nickname) thing should be removed from "Old Man" though, as the comment in the lead addresses that. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we agree on the nicknames; what about Danville? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Early Life

No complaints. Well-written. Could go more in depth about him dropping out, but I'll take it as it is.

• I think this is problematic. The timeline—that he enlisted in the navy in October 1958 (he was only 17 at the time)—would seem to indicate an enlistment while still in high school. Also, some sources (FN13 and FN14) seem to indicate that he finished his junior year, not that he left during it. If this can't be reconciled, a note should be added pointing out the potential discrepancy. This would seem to fit, as the enlistment was related to the auto theft, which likely (though we can't count on it) occurred during the summer. The FN15 source (Harrison's son's book) should be checked to see if it can supply the missing info. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I thinkt he timeline is like this: (If) He graduated from junior year, it was in June '58. He didn't though. I think what he says (that he didn't) is better than what some other sources say. Then, he stole he car some time after that. (He didn't have to steal it during the summer.) Then, he joined the navy. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Career

Military

Informative and well-written. Again, no complaints

• I see a number of issues:

• In the first paragraph of this section, the fourth sentence is problematic in two ways: first, the comma after "Sherry" is wrong, and second, the wording "was born ... soon after their marriage" gives the impression that the pregnancy might have predated the marriage. As this is a BLP, unless there is clear evidence (that is, the date of birth was only a few months after the marriage), then this needs rephrasing. Also, somewhere in the article there needs to be something that indicates that Richard Kevin Harrison (son number two) is Rick Harrison, the son who's his partner in the business and is on the show.

Removed the comma. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph has "20–21", which is simply unacceptable. Again, if you have conflicting sources (and you do: FN1 says 20 years and a late 1970s discharge, while FN17 has Harrison himself saying 21), then you need to add a note about the discrepancy, or use a less exact wording. You also need to look at the other information here: October 1958 – February 1962 for first enlistment, April 1963 (fourteen months later) through the late 1970s for the rest. 3 years 4 months for the first time would require at least 16 years 8 months for the rest of the 20 years, which from April 1963 would be December 1979 (which is as late in the 70s as you can go). Note that 20 years would have given full retirement benefits. He could have had 21 years from first enlistment to final discharge, yet only have served 20 years.

A note would be nice, but I think it was probably over 20. As in, 20 year, 8 months. (Which is an odd term of service.) Otherwise, I think some source count part of his retirement...? PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The real estate section needs expansion. It mentions that his wife got her real estate license and opened an office, which he worked at. I had assumed this meant she was a broker. FN1 seems to indicate that the couple bought and sold their own properties, which is how they managed to lose so much money. The article's claim that it was "declining real estate sales" (another apparent indication that she was a broker) that caused the problem is inaccurate if the source is correct.

These all need to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that as a personal preference. If you want to switch the word to broker, go on ahead. I don't feel there is a need. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want to switch to "broker", as I'm not sure it would be accurate. The issue here is with the phrase "declining real estate sales", since it doesn't seem to accurately reflect the source information; if I'm reading FN1 right, they seem to have lost the million bucks on real estate speculation, since as FN1 notes they were buying and selling for themselves. The wording can't go any further than FN1 allows, of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Business and reality television

• A little short

- This is what he is most known for, so I don't think it should overshadow everything else, but, at the same time, I'd like a little more on the struggle to get on TV, the first episode they did for another show (can't remember when/where/ what TV but the Pawn Stars article should have it. I'd also like a little more on Old Man's opinion of the show. I know he doesn't exactly adore being there.

• There's some overlinking here: Rick was linked earlier, and Chumlee is linked again later. More important is to consistently use names. Standard is to give the last name, which you do for Harrison; Rick needs to be Rick because he's also a Harrison (and because "Richard" would be confusing), and the same for Corey (and ditto). But Chumlee's last name is Russell, so I'd frankly go with that. If you decide not to, then "Chumlee" should have quotes the first time only in the article's body, and not thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

People can be linked more than once in the article, if it helps the reader. They just shouldn't be linked every time they're mentioned. I don't see problems with the names, as they are now. It seems that was already corrected. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition

(Note: I fixed a minor grammar error here too, so ya know.) No complaints here.

• A few issues:

• The first paragraph has no context for "alongside the other main characters": need to either give the show name or some other show context.
• The third paragraph should give the state that Lexington's in.
• The fourth paragraph, second sentence, is a run-on sentence; it should be recast and possibly split.
• The fifth paragraph has an inappropriate comma (this is the sort of thing that a prose check should turn up), a bad wikilink (which should be to the Time 100 article, not to the magazine's article), "Time" should be in italics, and this sentence neglects to note that they were not ultimately chosen for the list, which should be made clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

These have already been addressed. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Only the first paragraph has been taken care of; the rest still need to be worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Appearances

Pretty simple. Good to go.

Legal Issues

Daniel Callahan

Looks good.

• Actually, I found this quite confusing. The use of "defended" right after talking about a lawsuit made me think that Corey was a lawyer. The article on the show seems to indicate that grandson Corey is the one who manages the business; it also says that he has a 5% share in it, which would make him a part owner. But equally important, the "never in direct contact" wording here can be read as if they were in the room with Callahan but weren't the ones who tossed him out, when they weren't there at all. (They might have been in a back room, or not on the premises at all—the source doesn't make that clear.) There's also the use of "born 1950" to describe Callahan, which isn't supported by the source either. It just says Callahan was 62; he could have been born in 1949 for all we know. We also don't know when the incident took place: did Callahan sue right away, or months after the event? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. "Defended" isn't a legal term. I have no problem with the rest of the wording. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interference with Business Practices

• Doesn't relate to Old Man

-Seems to be about the shop and his business, but it could provide more relating to Harrison's reaction and role in the lawsuit.

• The final, very long sentence is quite confusingly written, and is thus not of the prose standard necessary in a GA-quality article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life

Cite 54 could be written better.

• I would recommend making this section at least two sentences: one place the split could occur is after "all types of cars". BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall, this article is only a few minor steps away from reaching GA-level. I checked all the cites as I was going, and they all seemed good (except 54, as noted above). All there is to do now is move some cites from the lead (the lead could be more generalized if need be, but all of it is mentioned later in the article), add a little more about the business and lawsuits (info pertaining to Harrison) and Old Man will be a GA! I'll do the rubric soon, although it's pretty obvious what that'll look like. PrairieKid (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. There are significant gaps, inaccuracies that need to be addressed, prose issues, and I think the review needs to examine the available sources further to see what other discrepancies might be involved. The article needs a good deal of attention—not merely minor steps—before it meets the good article standards. It's certainly doable, but shouldn't be understated. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second, who's reviewing this? Prairie or Blue? I don't mean there's anything wrong with a second person commenting, but these conflicting statements on article's eligibility sure make it kinda convoluted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer. I think I'm going to respond to some of Blue's comments, as I don't completely agree with him on a lot of it. PrairieKid (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the article is pretty close to GA level. I also want to add that Blue and I are having a discussion on his TP, if you're interested. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We may differ in what we consider to be "close to GA level". I think the article is clearly within striking distance of being a GA, and an hour or two of solid editing could get it there, but there are (as I've noted) several things that need to be corrected or adjusted, and some extra details that would help—especially if they are available in an existing source—in the coverage expected for a good article. To me this is more than "minor steps". Rather than being constructive, as was my intention, my comments appear to have been taken as rude and an invasion of Prairie Kid's review. The original reviewer always has final say, but additional commenters are always encouraged at GAN, assuming they are cogent. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rubric

This is the section where I tell you the results of my complaining.

Final thoughts from closer

It has been a month since the most recent comments here. In that time, the nominator, Bonkers The Clown, has not edited the article at all: not to address any issues raised by Prairie Kid, and not to address any made by me. Bonkers has been quite active in that time: well over 500 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. I did ping his talk page a week ago, asking about this nomination, but there was no response.

As such, I see no point in this remaining open. As Prairie Kid has not returned here in that month, I'm taking it upon myself to close the nomination as not listed. Once the issues raised here have been addressed in the article, it can be nominated again, though I suggest Bonkers be ready to devote the necessary attention to timely editing of the article in response to reviewer comments. The quality and breadth of a Good Article is an order of magnitude above that expected for a minimal DYK. If you look at the article's talk page, this is rated as a C-class article, and lacking two qualities required for B-class. Since GA is the next level above B, this has a ways to go yet, but it is within reach if the necessary work is done. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)