Talk:Metallic Metals Act/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 03:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek here, reviewing The Metallic Metals Act page for GA status: Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin with a shoutout to editor and nominator User:Argento Surfer for totally rewriting this article recently, it is definitely in immensely better shape than it was before.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose well written for the most part, although some sentences are awkward/transitions are lacking
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Agree that questions are probably best presented in current state (Old Issue: Recommend a review of the MOS page for Lists. The list of questions may be better presented as prose, this might help to expand the section since it is somewhat lacking. The rest of the article seems to insinuate that there were more questions in the survey, but this one has been singled out for full explanation.)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citation problems fixed by nominator (Old Issue:The question section has no citation and no apparent source. Furthermore, another source mentioning the work of Stanley and Presser (Also the only source I saw that mentioned the two in fact called them Schumer and Presser not Stanley and Presser); they mention being unable to find any documentation for the original study. This is a bold claim and seems like it could be further substantiated/repudiated.)
	2c. it contains no original research.	As far as I can tell everything is appropriately cited and is not original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked it using copyvio tool, came back clean
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the study and includes its legacy. To bring it up to FA class the legacy section could be expanded and/or this page could possibly be the redirect for "pseudo-opinions"
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on topic, is concise without being wordy
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars appear to be happening.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images or media provided. Could not independently find pictures or media related to article, nor does WikiCommons have any related content, so the lack of media is understandable.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	The article meets the standards for a good article. Congratulations, and good job to Argento Surfer for bringing it up to GA status and working with the review to fix any issues.

This is my first GA review so please let me know if I did something wrong!Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE 1B: I'm not really sure how MOS:EMBED applies because this isn't a list, it's just the question and available answers. I think turning it to prose would make it less clear. There were additional questions on the survey, but I don't have access to the survey and this is the only question on it that received significant coverage.

RE 2B: I added a source for the question and corrected the researcher's name. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to expand on the lack of documentation for the study - they found nothing, and their conclusions have been repeated. Note that I cited a third party for that claim, not their report.

RE 3A: I suggest you review the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Asking this article to please an expert in the subject is excessive.

More RE 3A: I don't have a link to Tide magazine. Wiki doesn't have an article on it, and none of the scholarly sources say anything about it. However, it is cited frequently and I don't see any reason to doubt its existence.

RE 4A: In 1947, Gill's findings were published and accepted as true despite his lack of documentation (as noted in the paragraph summarizing his study). In 1981, researchers pointed out there was no evidence of the study. That does not mean the study didn't happen. Anecdotes are not necessarily false. The article presents this chronologically, which I feel is the best way. I'm open to other suggestions if you feel this is inadequate.

RE 6A: I do not have access to images of Gill or the original study.

@CaptainEek:, I've responded to the issues you've raised, and I hope you'll reconsider the quick fail for this nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some more time looking at the GA review criteria and process, and also the comment by Barkeep49, and I realize that I was overly hasty with this review. Again, this was my first GA review and I wasn't really familiar with the process, so guess this is a trial by fire :) I'm going to look over it again for sure. You've raised some good points! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Process

Without commenting on anything specific CaptainEek because it was your first review I'll let you know it is normal to give the nominator some time to address the issues you've found - this includes both changing the article and an explanation of why what seems like a problem might not be. In fact I found this review because I track GA noms and reviews and it was unusual to see an article failed on the same day as the review starting without it being a quickfail. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, in hindsight I shouldn't have been so quick about it: the GA review page made it seem that you should get it done as quick as possible but now I understand that its an extended and cooperative process. I am definitely going to reopen the review and work with the nominator.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to have more GA reviewers. It is designed to be a "lightweight" process and there definitely is a wide range of reviewing styles - which is nice. If I can offer any help on the process please let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]