Talk:Washington: A Life/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BuzyBody (talk · contribs) 00:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am reviewing this article. This is my first review and I am working on this with the GA Recruitment Centre. Thank you for being willing to let a recruitee work on your article :) --BuzyBody (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being willing to do it! More good reviewers are always needed. I'll look forward to your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I picked your article to review, in part, because I love books based on historical figures. As this is my first GA review, I am going to try to closely follow the steps my recruiter uses. I am also going to ask a few questions to see what your thoughts are as I am really trying understand the process of GA reviews. :)

Well, this is certainly a good book to pick up sometime (even though it's huge--I got the abridged audio version from my library and even that was 15 hrs). I'm overdue to mention that User:Cindamuse is responsible for about half of this article, btw; I don't mean to hog credit that's rightfully hers, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to stand back from commenting, since I truly love collaborating with others and enjoy seeing how articles evolve. As a tip, you'll probably want to take a look at the WikiProject guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The guidelines haven't been reviewed or updated for over a year, so we may need to revisit them, but they currently provide some background and a list of examples putting them to practice. (I have differentiated at times.) Cindy(talk) 03:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

My first impression: Great job. The article covers the topic well and is written well.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose looks really good. My only question is in the “Background” section. In the second paragraph in this section, the first sentence reads, “Chernow conceived the idea of a book on Washington while researching Hamilton's life; the two men had worked together closely, and Chernow had come to believe that "that Hamilton is the protagonist of the book but Washington is the hero of the book". Is there a reason the word “that” is repeated? I do not think the “that” before the quote is needed but I wanted to ask?

Nope, just a dumb mistake on my part--thanks for catching it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Complies with MOS. I am not sure this is where I should mention this, but but I wonder if the layout should be "Background", "Summary", "Critical Response" (changed from "Response"). I am not sure if this layout is more correct or not. I ask because I have seen other articles use this layout instead. I also think the section title "Critical Response" covers the section better, but that is just my opinion.

Changed that header per your suggestion. As for order, I've seen it done both ways (Background before Summary and Summary before Background), and I think Featured Articles have been done both ways. If Christine's watching, she would actually know this better than me as someone who takes a lot of Lit articles to FA--Christine, do you know if there's a preferred order? My own instinct is to put summary first, but I have no strong feelings about it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, yah I'm watching. According to WP:BOOKS, "Background" should go before "Summary". That's the way I've seen it the most and the way that I've done it myself, and I've worked on dozens of lit articles. I'm with Cindy's input above. This way is intuitive to me because you need to know the background/history of something before you know what's in it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow that outline then, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
I wondered if the link to the book should be listed separately under "Bibliography" like it currently is, or should it just be listed under "External Links"? I ask because I have been looking at other articles on various books (ex: The Hunger Games) and it is sometimes listed under "External Links". I am not which is correct?

Yeah, I think it should definitely stay under references. Hunger Games has it in EL because the article doesn't cite the book itself as a reference (though the book is implicitly the reference for the summary). Here I've used the book as a reference because I have numerous direct quotations, which always require inline citations.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Verified none of the sources were dead links and spot checked a few sources to see if they backed up the statements they were cited for. I have found in some articles I have read the sources cited talk about the article’s topic in general, but do not back up the editor’s point. Your sources back up the information you are presenting nicely.

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I am not sure this is the spot I want to mention this, but I wondered if perhaps you should list another negative review in the "Reception" section. I ask because of the reviews you cite only one is negative.

I set out looking for negativity myself, actually, but the reviews I found were overwhelmingly positive, with multiple reviewers calling it the best Washington bio ever. It's possible another could be found with more digging, but I'm worried that then I'd be misrepresenting the balance of critical consensus by specifically seeking a judgement. (As an aside, though, this is always a great thing to ask about in GA reviews, because you do get a fair amount of nominations who are dedicated fans of author X or musician Y; not all of them seek POV balance.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article is stable; article has been tweaked in July 2013 but no serious changes.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I am still learning a lot about images. The image seems tagged correctly to me. You may want to get a second opinion.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I did wonder if you should add a photo of the author, Ron Chernow? It is just a suggestion.

WikiCommons doesn't have any Chernow images, unfortunately, and I'm not sure where to find one that would be free use; my understanding is that it's hard to write a valid fair-use claim for an image of a living person. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I think you did a great job and am just waiting to see what your thoughts are on the items I mentioned above. I do not see any issue that would prevent the article from passing, and want to see what my recruiter thinks as well. Thank you! --BuzyBody (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I've tried to address all your points above, but if you or Christine have any further concerns or questions, just let me know. I appreciate your feedback. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, guys! One of the ways I know that a lit article's high-quality is that it makes me want to read the book, and since I'm a bit of a history buff and the American Revolution is my favorite period, I probably will. I have a few things, if I were reviewing this article, that I would add.

Prose: In my reviews, I usually do a separate prose and source review. This article is already well-written, so my section would be very short. I'd add, though, that this article seems to depend too much upon quotes, especially the "Critical response" section. For example, it isn't necessary to quote one or two words, like this line in the "Background" section: Despite what he estimated to be more than nine hundred books written on Washington, Chernow decided to write another, with the goal of providing a "fresh portrait". You don't need quotes around "fresh portrait", since you reference it. If you're going to call Chernow a "self-made historian", you should state who called him that, as in "The book's author, Ron Chernow, is a former freelance business journalist who later became, as ----- called him, a "self-made historian". I think that you should go through the article and try to change the quotes into paraphrases, if and whenever possible.

Images: I feel your pain about lack of images. It helps that you have the video in your "External links" section. I wonder, though, if you could add some pics of Washington, or of some of the figures you mention, like Hamilton or Martha Washington. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and

Done, I think. I left the snatches of Chernow's words intact where he's saying things about Washington--I like capturing just little bits of his voice here--but others I've taken out of quotation. I also added the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Washington; flipping the background and summary sections had the unexpected advantage of allowing me to add an image to this section without its being opposite the infobox. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a great job here, Khazar! Your work is appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine, thank you for keeping an eye on this and providing a bit of guidance. As always, your input is much appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar2, Cindy and Christine - I want to thank each of you for all your help. I had a lot of fun reviewing this article. Thanks for being so willing to help me learn how to review GA nominations. --BuzyBody (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]