Talk:Weed the People/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA nomination successful per sufficient improvements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


♫ I was gonna review this nom, but then I got high :P ♫..... just kidding, I should at least have my comments for lead and infobox up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Now to start on those.....

Infobox[edit]

  • File:Weed the People promotional poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
  • Is including coordinates common practice for events of this nature? I'm not familiar with their use frequency.
    • You know, I don't know. I've been wondering this myself. I almost asked someone to add a map, but then thought, do we display maps for where events took place? FWIW, the building is unlikely to ever be notable, so I don't think we'll have an issue of clashing coordinates. I'm not opposed to removing the coordinates if you or other editors prefer. If neither of us are really sure, I'm not sure who to ask...? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bri: Curious, do you have any thoughts on whether or not this article should have coordinates and/or a map? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinates yes, map no. I think the map would be kind of too obvious for an event in Portland. Also I can't think of any other infobox event articles that do display a map. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, Woodstock has a map. But whatsis farm is not as obvious as Portland so I'm sticking with what I said above. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri, Ok, thanks! I am fine having coordinates without a map. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, no objections to the coordinates here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • When the lead is supposed to be a summary of an article's content, all of it should ideally be cited in article body, so let's have a mention of this event's full title there as well and move its citation accordingly
  • "Sponsored by The Portland Mercury and two cannabis companies"..... let's mention the companies by name

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background and planning[edit]

  • Unless I'm missing something, Ballot Measure 91 isn't mentioned in either of its attributed citations.
    • No, but Oregon Ballot Measure 91 is how recreational cannabis was legalized. I didn't include a citation specifically verifying this because I assumed the claim was noncontroversial and sourcing should stayed focused on the event itself. Keep in mind, this is meant to serve as background information to readers -- I didn't just want to say events were held after legalization without giving a little context about how the law was changed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You cannot just assume people will automatically infer that from reading its references; either remove the ballot mention or use a source that mentions it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, I'd try to give something more definitive than "there was reportedly a waiting list with 750 names"
  • Your setup of "It celebrates the throwing off of oppression and the freedom of legalization. And now, people can watch the fireworks tomorrow while high. They were probably going to do that anyway, but we're just helping them along." incorrectly implies this is one continuous quote without interruption when there's actually a break after the first sentences.
    • The current format looks fine to me. Are you suggest there should be " ... " after "freedom of legalization"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That or maybe some other non-quoted text in between the quotes it gives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        SNUGGUMS, I feel like the current version follows standard conventions, unless I'm misunderstanding. @Twofingered Typist: Would you happen to have any thoughts here? Inviting you as recent copy editor. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you tell? Unless the "invalid authorization response" at the bottom of the page pertains to a clip I for some reason can't access, it's hard to say where you got that idea. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    • @Another Believer: My apologies, I should have said "likely" did not have a break. The reporter is gathering reactions to the event. An individual gives their impression and is identified for the reader part way through their response in the written text. It seems completely logical to me - standard journalistic practice. There are two distinct sentences in the response. They cannot be combined into one sentence. Since the same person uttered both sentences in context, responding to the same event, I fail to see any reason not to quote them as I did. Trying to come up with a way to combine them into one sentence is not going to improve/change the reader's understanding of what Josh Taylor meant one iota. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm pretty sure that it doesn't, though regardless is deceptive. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            SNUGGUMS, Can you change the article to what you think is more appropriate? I'm assuming this is a minor edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is minor, so can do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Thank you, just not fully sure I understand what you have in mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this change does not follow standard conventions, though. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Twofingered Typist agrees. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't fabricate quotes; at no point in this is the word "blessed" used, only that police "gave it their blessing"
    • Changed to "The Portland Police Bureau "gave [the event] their blessing" and did not have a large presence." ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refactoring quotes like that is a bad choice as it detracts from integrity of citation use. I've tweaked this to read "gave it their blessing" per that and how it was already clear that "it" meant this event. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to "Event" in my next run. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks! Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns re: above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After some further thought, it might be best to paraphrase the Josh Taylor quote(s) when we can't say for certain whether the intent was one uninterrupted quote or not. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, What do you think about this change? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this gives some context about what he means about the "fireworks", so mentioning the holiday is helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good change. No objections to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Great! Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in. OK if I collapse this section for organizational purposes? Want to make sure all concerns are resolved for this section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Section looks good, though leave collapsing to me, and I'll probably get to it in my next batch. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Event[edit]

  • Remove the space after "2:00" in "2:00 –9:00 pm"
  • No need for "Metal Craft Fabrication"; just MCF Craft Brewing Systems is sufficient
    • Sources use both names. I assumed best to communicate both than pick one over the other. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the north Portland section of Eliot" is overkill when you could just say "in Portland", maybe "in north Portland" or "in northern Portland"
  • I see 1,500 and 2,000, but not 1,300, so where did that come from?
    • Well, reportedly 1,300 tickets were sold, but I've changed to 1,500. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut "Most attendees were from the Portland metropolitan area, but residence in Oregon was not required; some were from as far away as Idaho and Michigan" as it's trivial
  • "was not without complications" doesn't read very well

Once those are set, I'll get to "Commentary". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary[edit]

  • That big quote is way too much. Can't you paraphrase at least some of it?
    • I removed a sentence (moved "historic" to prose). ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but I'd ideally reduce it further (paraphrasing will help) to the point where you don't need to blockquote (much like the other people's comments listed). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you feel strongly, I'll find a way to trim further, but if I'm being honest, I'd prefer to keep. This really nicely summarizes the historic nature of the event, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having a block quote with four sentences. I think this reads quite nicely, actually. @Bri: What do you think? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[tested] the limits for what's legal when it comes to marijuana in Oregon"..... again, don't alter quotes like that when what it really said was "is testing the limits". As I said before, it detracts from integrity of citation use.
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, you don't need to use the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph, especially when the uses here both come from the same citation.
    • I don't see where this is a problem, can you be more specific? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two instances found in Weed the People § Event and resolved ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bri, Ah, ok! Sorry, I was focused on the Commentary section specifically. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SNUGGUMS: Please let me know if this change is what you had in mind, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's another good change for "Events". What I meant for "Commentary", though, is how Keegan Hamilton is cited twice consecutively when he actually just needs to be sourced at the end of his last sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, ok. I thought inline citations were always preferred after direct quotes, but works for me! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Use either CNN Business (without italics) or just CNN, not both as that's repetitive
  • Don't italicize Yahoo! News
  • Courtney Sherwood is missing as the author of the Reuters link
  • Citations 5 and 18 ("In Photos: Celebrating America and Legal Marijuana at Portland's 'Weed the People' Party" by Keegan Hamilton) are duplicates of one another; merge these into one
    • Another good catch! Not sure how that slipped through the cracks. Thanks!  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

  • If we can't verify that this event took place specifically in Eliot, then remove the template
    • The event took place in Eliot based on the confirmed address and warehouse location in north Portland. I feel strongly about keeping the category and navbox. This is confirmed by a basic Google search, and is not controversial. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bri: Do you think keeping the neighborhood category and navbox is ok? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a reference that said "North Portland" [1], but am having trouble finding "Eliot" specifically. Have tried both general Google/Bing searches and ProQuest. I'd really like to nail it down. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri, Well, sources don't say the neighborhood in which the event was held, but based on a Google Maps search, we can easily confirm the geographic area in which the warehouse is located. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it's not like you tried to pulled something out of nowhere, and to be fair, navboxes aren't as strict on inline citation matters now that I give it more thought. Definitely not controversial. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you can use those within "Event". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, I think not mentioning Eliot in the prose, but keeping the category and navbox is totally appropriate. I think we might all be fine with the current version re: neighborhood, if I'm understanding correctly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When possible, it is preferred to have anything listed in navboxes also supported by article prose, even if not as bad as outright inserting claims supported by nothing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Ok, added back Eliot and kept's Bri's preference for North Portland as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • Prose: Still needs some touching up
  • Referencing: A few citations need adjusting, and one bit of text isn't quite faithful to its attributed reference
  • Coverage: Nothing of concern
  • Neutrality: No bias detected
  • Stability: All good
  • Media: Image used is A-OK
  • Verdict: On hold for seven days beginning now. If the remaining concerns are sufficiently addressed within that time, then I will pass this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through once more, this looks good enough to meet GA standards, so passing! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weed_the_People/GA1&oldid=893251903"