Wikipedia:Peer review/Park Grill/archive1

Park Grill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article needs to achieve WP:GA by mid June in order to keep the WP:FT Millenium Park from being demoted, but it has already failed WP:GAC. I am posting this at PR on behalf of the active editors of the page.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Several issues stand out:-

• The article is unreasonably over-referenced, with multiple citations at the end of many of the sentences. For example, "During that time, Laura Foxgrover, a top official in the Park District department directly overseeing the deal, gave birth to O'Malley 's child.[17][20][24][25][26][28][29][30][27][31][32][33][34] Thirteen citations for one simple fact is ridiculous. There are plenty of other similar instances, and the overall effect is to make the prose unreadable.
  • Thanks for your careful read and thoughtful comments. I would like to put in some more time on this article as time permits. In preparation I would like to first ask your guidance on some issues (not to debate). The plethora of citations is an artifact of a notability debate. For example, some editors thought the sentence you cite was not notable, even though the sentence or a minor variation was included in almost every reliable source that mentioned the restaurant. How do I nuke the refs w/o inviting deletion of the sentence? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • removed excessive references, moved additional references to an end note Hugh (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Secondly, the article is entitled "Park Grill", but the restaurant itself is not the main focus of the article, which seems to be on the various contract scandals surrounding it. If this is what the article is substantially about, this should be reflected in the title.
  • The article is about the Park Grill restaurant, of which the the most notable aspect of several notable aspects is the circumstances of the contract. The prominence of the contract award in the article reflects the weight in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the statements, made about living persons, carry implications of misdeeds. Thus, "Barbara has ties to the Hired Truck Program scandal and the blue bag recycling controversy" and "...former congressman Morgan F. Murphy, who has had business dealings with convicted labor boss John Serpico." Are you sure of your ground in making these assertive, derogatory statements? Would it not be safer to use a less direct format, for example "Such-and-such has reported Barbara's ties..." etc?
  • The 2 phrases you cite were lifted pretty much as is from RS. Yes, I am sure of the grounds for these assertions based on the cited RS and also other uncited RS. Would adding additional RS to those 2 assertions increase safety? or contribute to over-referencing? The 2 sentences link to related WP articles, so the assertions add to linking. The backgrounds of the members of the investors are an aspect of the notability of the restaurant. The 2 sentences are representative of similar backgrounds of other investors not included in the interest of brevity. Thanks again for your help! Hugh (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • changed boss -> official, added additional reliable references Hugh (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Numerous issues of detail, for example:-
  • MOS violation on numeric representations of small numbers ("5 Top Newcomers", "7th largest")
    • done Hugh (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • several single-sentence paragraphs
    • reviewed, fixed (mostly) Hugh (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • some non-encyclopedic phrasing ("clout-heavy", )
    • removed Hugh (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • bare link within the text (Chicago Board of Ethics)
    • moved to external links Hugh (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • inappropriate use of double hyphen rather than mdash
    • fixed Hugh (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • inappropriate date formatting ("Feb. 11 2003")
    • fixed Hugh (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel, however, that the major issues surrounding the article need to be sorted out first - especially that of over-referencing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to this but I have had many problems on and off-wiki.
  • Over-referencing: a fact's notability needs to be evidenced by at least one reliable source. For emphasis, you might use two, or even three. But more than that merely looks defensive, and 13 is way, way over the top. My advice in such cases is to choose a couple of the most reliable sources and chuck the rest. Views may differ about whether a fact is notable, but its notability doesn't increase simply by adding more sources.
  • On the living persons issue, I'd say that rather than add more citations (and thus aggravate the previous problem) you should include attribution in your text, i.e. give the source within the text. That gets rid of any POV nuances; you are merely reporting what others have said, which is fine.
  • I notice that you haven't addressed any of the issues of detail which I have enumerated above. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Hugh (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Final comments: At the request of Tony the Tiger I have looked at the article again.

• I see that you have reduced the overlong reference strings. But what on earth is the purpose of the string of citations listed as additional references under "Notes"? What information are they supporting?
• Bare links are still present (Location and views, Background of managing partners)
• Background of investors has successive sentences beginning: "Other investors include..."
• My advice about direct attribution of comments about living persons has not been taken.

I'm afraid I cannot afford to spend any more time on the article. I advise you make these further fixes, and hope that you can get it through GA in time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with this review?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)