Talk:Diego's Hair Salon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Review

The article does not seem to warrant "good article" status. Aside from the fact that the article needs a major expansion to warrant higher grades, it does not meet the notability necessary for a good article. In fact, it seems almost like an advertisement. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is clear and readable with no obvious errors

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Article meets MoS criteria, though perhaps the awarding of the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity could be mentioned in the lead
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
There are references to sources laid out in an appropriate section

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are appropriate and are to reliable sources

C. No original research:
Article reflects the sources and adds nothing new
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The reasons for notability are established and explained, and there is a brief history of the shop - however, there is no description of the salon, nor of the building itself. There are no business details, such as turnover, etc - however, GA criteria doesn't ask for comprehensive coverage (that's an FA criteria), it asks for the "main aspects of the topic", so this is a debatable point - however, I feel some description of the salon/building would be helpful

B. Focused:
Article remains on topic and doesn't go into too much detail
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article appears neutral - following the sources closely, and not loading the article with undue praise or criticism
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article is stable
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Appropriate tags

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Captions could be a little more descriptive, and that would be part of the article's ongoing development, but pass GA criteria
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This is a short article on a minor topic, though it does establish notability via the reliable sources. While very short, it appears to meet the GA criteria. Small, discrete topics can become Good Articles if they comply with the GA criteria, and this one does just that. There is the question of the appropriateness of this as a standalone article. It could work as a section in the parent article of Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C., and it might be worth at some point having that discussion. Certainly, whether this article is merged into Dupont Circle or not, there should be some mention of Diego's Hair Salon in that article.
The points that might hold this off from becoming a Good Article are the lack of mention of the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity in the lead, and lack of description of the salon/building. I would put this on hold for seven days to allow that matter to be addressed or discussed. SilkTork *^YES! 09:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Done. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Review Reassessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Due to the "questionable" nature of this article, it is difficult to say that the amount of sources is appropriate and whether each source is reliable
The Independent, The Washington Post, The Washington Monthly, the District of Columbia: Mayor's Office, and The InTowner are reliable sources. Getting five such independent reliable sources for a small article is quite good and should establishe the notability of the subject, especially as the topic is directly and significantly dealt with in each of the sources. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Please see above
The are no indications of original research as the article follows the sources very closely, adding nothing new. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
A majority of the article was written only by one user
I understand the thinking, though that's not part of WP:NPOV. 20 people can push an article toward a biased POV. It has nothing to do with how many people wrote an article. It's all to do with the end result. I like to think that the more people involved in an article the more it will balance out - though when an article is on a non-controversial topic, and is merely giving neutral information that a barber shop exists, and has been used by some famous people, for which there are several reliable sources providing that information, then one person can usually write that out without concerns of bias. If there were no reliable independent sources, and the person writing the article was related to the topic, that would warrant closer examination, but even then the judgement would be on the end result and the sources, not on the writer. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Even though I am still against the article being promoted to "good status", I will put the nomination on hold for a week. At that time, I will reassess the article and make a final decision. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please indicate to the nominator and any potential contributors if there's anything you'd expect them to do during the hold. If you'd just like time to consider the situation, that's OK. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just informed the nominator, although I don't think any changes will be made. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I also have doubts about suitability of this article for GA, but I think that some of the criticisms raised by Ryderofpelham123 are unfair. In particular, regarding "Fair representation without bias", Ryderofpelham123 writes: "A majority of the article was written only by one user". The fact that the article is written mostly (or even entirely) by a single user is not, in and of itself, an indication of bias or neutrality problems and does not in any way disqualify an article from passing as GA. If there are bias/neutrality problems here, they need to be specifically pointed out. I actually think that there are issues with breadth of coverage here. The main claim to fame of this barber shop is its supposed popularity with celebrities and politicians. However, the article provides essentially no indication for reasons for such popularity and no quotes to that effect from the celebrities/politicians themselves. Another problem concerns the article being properly focused. The section "D'Ambrosio's honors" focuses on the owner rather than the establishment. It is not entirely clear if some other honors listed there really are primarily related to the hair saloon rather than the owner's other activities. E.g. the ref[1] regarding Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity actually mentions something else as the reason for the honor: "He worked for a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal for Constantino Brumidi for the artist's frescoes in the U.S. Capitol, among other deeds, said an official from the Italian Embassy." Nsk92 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but I feel that an article needs to be changed by multiple editors to be deemed "neutral". I have already cited that I feel this article does not meet notability standards, but another editor informed me that notability is not factored into GA status. I would appreciate if you would fill out a full review, as have been done above. I would definitely factor in your opinion when I make a final decision next week. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might do a full review in the next few days but I am not sure if I'll have time. Regarding neutrality, I strongly disagree - the fact that only one editor was a major contributor is not, in and of itself, evidence of neutrality problems. There is not the least hint of such a requirement in WP:NPOV. Neutrality problems, if they exist, must be specifically pointed out. On the other hand, I think that notability may be brought up, at least indirectly, as a legitimate issue in relation to reliability and quality of sources and breadth of coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read the main editors page, and feel that there might be some bias. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion, and whether or not you choose to do a full review, I will definitely consider your advice in my decision. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had another look at the article and want to summarize my views regarding it. I am rather new to the GA review process and am not very familiar with the protocol - in particular I am not sure if two different users may conduct the GA reassessment at the same time. Therefore I prefer to list my opinions as informal comments rather than as a formal full review.

As noted above, I disagree with Ryderofpelham123 in relation to the article's neutrality. I do not see the fact that there is only one primary contributor to the article as, in and of itself, justifying marking it down on neutrality grounds. It appears to me that the current text of the article is in fact reasonably neutral (except perhaps for the issue of balance discussed below).
I also do not understand the objection raised by Ryderofpelham123 in relation to verifiability and WP:OR. The statement "Due to the "questionable" nature of this article, it is difficult to say that the amount of sources is appropriate and whether each source is reliable" appears to indicate an opinion about the subject of the article rather than about satisfying specific WP:GACR criteria. WP:RGA specifically cautions: "Avoid commenting on the perceived "merit" of the subject of the article". As far as I could tell, the sources cited satisfy WP:V and there are sufficient in-line citations in the current version of the article in relation to the facts stated there. I would probably give the article a pass in terms of verifiability and no original research, even though I'd prefer more extensive referencing.
However, in my opinion, the article falls fairly far short of the GA requirements in terms of the breadth of coverage. As I said above, the main claim to fame for the salon is its supposed popularity with the politicians and celebrities. It then really needs to be explained in some way what such popularity is based on: what are the unique features of this establishment that make it attractive to the high-profile clientele and what do the famous patrons themselves have to say about this. The current text provides little info on this point. Further, for any article about a business I would expect to see more information about the business as such, e.g. stuff like the number of employees, income, etc and more info on the specific services provided (it is not even clear from the text if both men's and women's haircuts are provided by the salon). Again, there is little info of this type in the article, apart from the fact that it charges $20 for men's haircuts. The ref[2] indicates that there are other aspects of the impact of the salon on the community that are essential to its fame but are not discussed in the article. E.g. the ref says "Diego's business has served to bring the community together as a catalyst for improvements, social interchange and the overall growth and development for the Dupont Circle and the District as a whole." If that is so, the issue of impact on the community needs to be covered in more detail.
I also think there are issues in terms of focus. Much of the article is about the owner, not the establishment and the text does not make it very clear if the particular honors bestowed on the owner are primarily based on running the hair salon or on his other activities. In fact, as mentioned above, the ref given for the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity actually gives reason to believe that the award may be based on the owner's other activities. Proportion-wise the information about the owner should be a fairly small part of the article. To some extent this is an issue of balance as well as focus.
Overall, if I had to evaluate the article from scratch, I would not have passed it as GA in its current form, primarily based on the issues of breadth of coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Reassessment

Due to the fact that no one has made any contributions to this article since July, I doubt anyone will make any other contributions before September 27. Also, during a previous "on hold" period, no changes were made. Therefore, I am going to conduct a final assessment now. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes. It is not yet September 27th. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I feel the article's coverage is too limited and not detailed enough.

B. Focused:
See above
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Although many editors have said only one contributor does not constitute a fail here, I disagree. Everyone has at least some bias, and there needs to be multiple contributors to eliminate any bias.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is not anywhere near good article status, regardless of its significance. The coverage is too limited and the article needs a major expansion. I highly recommend getting multiple contributors to improve the article before even considering renomination.

Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that this review is final. Any further GA Status reviews will only happen if the article is renominated. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]