Talk:Howard Adelman/GA1

GA Review

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

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Why is "First Annual Howard Adelman Lecture" in quotes?

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that he one of the principal founders of Rochdale College should probably be mentioned in the lead.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• You only need citations in the lead for controversial facts (see WP:LEADCITE)—the actual citation should follow in the body somewhere when the fact is repeated, since the lead is a summary of the body of the article.

 Done I helped finish this one off. --Eustress (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be completely re-written. Review WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize info in the body of the article, but currently there is a lot of info presented in the lead that is never presented in the body with citation.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• "refugees, immigration policy and genocide," → "refugees, immigration policy and genocide."

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

• What source is there for his date of birth? It's not presented in the body of the article with a citation.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• Please summarize the contents of this article by inserting Template:Infobox Person.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Honors and awards section only discusses the First Annual Howard Adelman Lecture (which isn't too notable and goes into too much detail). Cut down the info regarding that lecture and talk about his other honors and awards.

• If there is only one award he has received, this information should probably be merged into another section. --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Took care of this myself. --Eustress (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• No information about his personal life? (family, hobbies, youth, etc.)

I'll let this slide for GAN, but hopefully more can be found with time (and before a FAC run).--Eustress (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• "Not done yet..." is a bit POV. Maybe you can use a more neutral transition, like "Additionally...."

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the article and the entire Honors and awards section is attributed to one source (Y File). More sources are needed to establish notability.

• Inline citations should directly follow punctuation marks, per WP:MOS. --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Took care of this myself. --Eustress (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

No prior issues

  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

Would be nice to have some pictures but won't hold back GAN

Preliminary conclusion

The article currently has some major issues that would prevent it from attaining GA status, but I will put the article on hold for one week to give it a shot at improvement. I suggest referencing some WikiProject Biography Featured Articles (e.g., Charles Darwin) to see some articles to pattern after. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on your comments to revise the article.

I don't understand your comment about Canadian Who's Who. According to WP: Reliable source: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Canadian Who's Who is all of these, and is frequently used in biography articles in Wikipedia. In fact, I just completed a GA review in which Who's Who in America was accepted as a reliable source.

Moreover, my reading of WP:Notability is that it requires the topic to be notable, not the sources of information used to write an article. Sources must be WP:RS. Please check this and clarify for me.

The section you tagged as using one source uses one source because it was a source reporting about a single event, a speech. I doubt there are any other sources for a single speech. It was published, so shouldn't it be enough?

Rewrote the lead and a couple other sections, and I'll keep working on the rest of your comments. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you now regarding Who's Who as a source and put a strike through that issue above. I mistakenly was thinking of Marquis Who's Who, which WP:Notability_(people)#Notes frowns upon with regards to WP:RS.

The single-source tag you referenced should be resolved when you incorporate the other awards he has earned, as requested in criterion 3 above. (But here's another source anyway.) You'll need to pare the info about the lecture way down—a glancing remark noting that a lecture named after him was held would be sufficient. --Eustress (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Added box and made most of changes you suggested. Working on photo, but no GFDL yet. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I've updated the status above, so you can see what issues still need to be resolved. And remember that while a picture is nice, it's not required for GA status. --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no information about his personal life or additional awards. I've asked, along with request for a photo, but have received no reply as yet. Reference for his birth date was one of the ones removed from lead so I'll put it back.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I reorganized things similar to other FA biographies. --Eustress (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thanks for your hard work in getting this up to par. The result is pass. Cheers! --Eustress (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)