Talk:James Suckling/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jerem43 (talk • contribs • count) 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (references):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Note - As this is my first BLP review, so I am going to take this slowly to ensure it meets the standards of WP:BLP. I've also asked the Wine WikiProject for input as well. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of quick notes from an initial look through:

The lead is rather short.
The lead has references in it; references in the lead are not needed when the subject is non-controversial. You may want to move them into the body of the article.
Some of the citations in the body are mid sentence, they should fall after punctuation
There are several one or two sentence paragraphs, please expand these or merge them
I encountered several long, run-on sentences. Please fix these.
Last sentence, third paragraph. To date, Suckling lives in Tuscany.^[9] is easily confusing. I would edit this to read a little better.

I'm not a huge fan of the GA process, but as someone who regularly rates wine articles on the quality assessment scale, I would still label this as a "C class" article. Besides the shortness of the lead, I would expect the biography to be segmented to separate personal details/charity work from his publishing career (which could be greatly expanded). Other missing content would be Suckling's influence on the wine industry (and probably a separate sub-section on his influence on the cigar industry) and I think a full NPOV article would need to include some of the reliably sourced criticism of Suckling as well. There is also quite a bit of "ref padding" with single lines having 3-6 ref citations. It would seem more fruitful to ax the redundant refs and see if the other refs can be used to expand the content. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments from you two - I really do. When I nominated the article I wasn't aware that it needed this much work. I've only ever reviewed one good article before, and this is the first time I've ever nominated one myself. I thought it might be a good way in furthering my Wikipedia experience. Although there are a few things that I might quibble over (for example, I think I am right in saying that leads can have citations in them, especially if the article in question is a BLP per WP:LEADCITE), there appears to be much I can do to the article before even considering having somebody review it for GA; the fact that Agne still considers it to be a C for wine is particularly concerning. Since the article hasn't been officially reviewed yet, and since I don't want to waste any other diligent editors' time and am unlikely to be able to find a quick enough fix for the article, I think I'm going to withdraw the nomination. I will probably have enough time to work on it over the next few weeks (I have a few pending articles to complete for various periodicals), and would be very pleased to have both of your inputs (and of course anyone else's), should you feel willing. The article is worth a lot of sentimental value to me and the edits I made had a lasting impression (not just because I read Suckling's work): it was one of the first times where I felt I had actually made a difference to the encyclopaedia (by significantly expanding the article) and to this day I am a Wikipedian for that reason - because I feel I have a commitment in providing trustworthy, free information to those who seek it. Once again, thanks for your invaluable comments, and I hope that I have not sidetracked you from more pressing matters. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:46, 23 September 2011 (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.