Jump to content

Talk:Alison Frantz/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review. Comments will be posted momentarily. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments below:

  • At five paragraphs, the lede is too long. Please summarise it to 3 to 4 paragraphs. I'll take a closer look at the lede once this is addressed.
    • I've made a few edits for brevity: we're now at 444 words by a rough count on Microsoft Word. Per MOS:LEAD (all emphasis mine):
      • As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs
      • The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article
      • As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs
      • Most featured articles have a lead length of about ... 250 to 400 words.
In other words: MOS:LEAD, which is the relevant guideline for GA standards, explicitly doesn't put a hard limit on lead length, but rather advises taking any suggestion of lead length only as a general rule of thumb. The overarching principle is to create a condensed summary of the article whereby no key point is left out, but neither is anything explained more verbosely than necessary. Even by the terms of those guidelines, we're 11% off the recommendations for an FA, which I think would be within tolerances even if we were taking that as our standard. I think on balance the lead is what the MoS asks for: however, if you do think a particular detail is excessive or could be explained more precisely, please do point it out. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The longer the lede is, the less likely a reader is going to read it. Here is some information in the lede that might be removed:
  • "Frantz was born in Minnesota, lived briefly in Scotland following the early death of her father, and lived for most of her life in Princeton, New Jersey." -> "Born in Minnesota, Frantz lived for most of her life in Princeton, New Jersey." The article has two sentences on her living in Scotland, so I do not think this information is important in the lede.
  • "assisting Lucy Talcott with the records of the project," Why is it important for the reader to know who she assisted?
  • "where she worked as an assistant to Carl Blegen, another archaeologist turned agent, " Why is it important, in this article, to mention this person and who they were in the lede?
  • I think the second and third paragraphs can be merged together after the cuts, and possibly the third and fourth paragraphs.
I look forward to these thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All reasonable, though equally I think all have tradeoffs:
  • The early death of Frantz's father is a major event in her life: I think this is a good way to get it in. Her time in Scotland is also significant as the time that she first picks up photography: this is set out in the article. This is probably the smallest tradeoff of them all, but I must admit that saving 11 words also seems like a fairly small benefit.
  • Since this information is important for the lede because this is where she began photography, the fact that this is where her photography began should also be in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talcott is a major figure in Frantz's life: sources regularly refer to her as Frantz's lifelong companion, and you'll notice she pops up a lot in this article.
  • Again, so is Blegen, especially for her OSS work: in many ways, he's the (only) thread between her many different espionage, diplomatic and cultural roles. Generally, we should introduce people that the reader is unlikely to know by name, and I think it's both interesting and significant that this relationship was between two archaeologists, rather than Frantz working for a career spy, as might reasonably be assumed if unclarified.
  • They could, but equally, long paragraphs are less readable, certainly if no major cuts are made. I'm reluctant to create long chunks of text to satisfy a guideline that explicitly says it isn't to be followed religiously. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that there are a lot of important details in her life that can be included in the lede, but longer ledes are less likely to be read; if they are not read, then readers will learn nothing about this person. The lede is important to introduce the most important aspects of Frantz's life, and anything that does not fulfil that purpose should be removed. This might mean that you will have to increase your criteria of what is most important. I agree that 4 large paragraphs is also not ideal, but in my opinion some information needs to be cut. I have given some suggestions, and I can give more, but ultimately it will be your decision on what to remove from the lede. Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow this line of suggestion, I'm afraid: you've suggested lots of things to add here. I can see the intention behind trying to get the lead as short as it can be, but I don't understand the arbitrary insistence on getting down to four paragraphs, which isn't supported by the MoS or the GA criteria. I find it particularly hard to believe that many more readers will read the article if the line break between the last two paragraphs is removed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: The lede needs to be shorter. Five paragraphs are a symptom of the problem, as right now combining paragraphs would only make them too long. What I'm trying to ask is: does the information need to be in the lede to understand this person's biography? If so, the lede needs to explain the importance. In my opinion, her contributions need to be in the lede because they are directly related to her work and notability. I don't think various people who worked with her need to be in the lede because, while their contributions to her work are important, their connections to her biography are not as important as her contributions. I suggest that you go through the lede with higher criteria of what to include, remove information that is not as important, and if needed, explain the significance of why these people or Scotland are mentioned. If you want, I can also give additional examples of what could be removed. Once these cuts are made, hopefully the lede can be reformatted into 4 paragraphs, but that's a later goal. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bit more here: we're now at under 400 words, which is within the range suggested by MOS:LEAD for an FA. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frantz started her career in the Athenian Agora excavations, conducted by the ASCSA, in January 1934,[19] assisting Lucy Talcott, the excavation's recording secretary, in the Record Department." Too many commas are negatively affecting the flow of this sentence. I suggest a rewrite.
  • Source check: Version reviewed. No concerns with earwig.
  • Refs checked with no issues: 19, 40, 59, 65, 70, 71
  • Ref 5: "For the name of Frantz's mother, see Vogeikoff-Brogan 2019." If it is not important in the article to mention the mother's name, then do not put a note like this in the references. This is telling the reader to do extra research, which is unnecessary.
    • Not sure I understand this one: her mother's name (Mary Kate Frantz) is mentioned in the article, in the sentence cited to reference 5. The note is simply to indicate that there are two sources supporting that sentence: one supports that name, the rest supports everything else. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misinterpreted what this note was doing: I don't think notes in references, suggesting where to verify information, is necessary. I have not seen that in articles before, and usually this type of information is given in a note, not in an inline citation. Nevertheless, its inclusion will not affect its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: no concerns, copyright licences are fine.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede has been improved, and I think it meets the GAN criteria. With a little more work on perfecting the prose, and some more trimming of the lede, I think this can be nominated to FAC. For now, this is a pass for GAN. Congradulations. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2024 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alison_Frantz/GA1&oldid=1212405363"