Talk:1-54/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Swpb (talk · contribs) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout needs some improvement – the "History" section should be broken into subsections.
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).	A few statements stand out to me as needing revision or better support: "only art fair dedicated to contemporary African art in the primary art sector". I know this comes directly from the source, but it's a bit vague – what defines the "primary art sector"? If the term cannot be more precisely defined with sourcing, the statement should probably be dropped. "its founder received significant ideological support". This is also vague, and needs to be sourced or removed. "a greater variety of non-niche curators" What is a niche curator? The term needs to be better defined, or removed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The sources are largely favorable to the topic – that may be unavoidable, but care must be taken not to let that bias show through. In a few places, statements from sources are being taken at face value: "organizers ask themselves 'what is necessary, what can be achieved, how [to] do something different'". This is a statement from the fair's founder. Fair enough, but it should be couched more neutrally: "For each addition, the fair's founder Touria El Glaoui has stated, organizers ask themselves..." "African politics did not impede the selection process". That may be true, but it's coming from a biased source, which needs to be attributed in the text. "1:54 NY is smaller and more intimate with an active community and different audience". The size of the event is an objective fact; the rest is editorializing by the fair's founder, and doesn't add anything to the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Holding passage until item 2b and 4 issues are addressed, within the standard 7-day period. Nominator refuses to fix issues which reviewer considers unresolved. Nominator is free to try again with someone else.

—swpb^T 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Swpb, thanks for the review! I don't think it would serve the (relatively short) article by subsectioning the History. I considered splitting out a section on 1:54 NY but it didn't make sense in the overall history, so best to cover it in a single paragraph and continue along the general historical trajectory of the fair. I think the article is balanced for neutrality, especially given the sources. The fair's founder is a fine source for their curatorial practices and organizational history, especially when there is no source that suggest anything to the contrary. Appreciate the other comments and believe I have addressed them, if you'll have a look. Thanks again for your time! czar 19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that my comments have been addressed, in terms of the necessary changes being made to the article. I won't make a stand on the formatting, but I do believe the remaining 2b and 4 issues require changes. If you don't agree, I can close the review so you can renominate the article and wait for another reviewer. —swpb^T 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Swpb, I changed the ones that I agree warranted changing (which were most of your suggestions), and I explained why I didn't change the two statements (in #4) where I disagree. I think it makes for sloppy prose to provide attribution of statements when the attribution isn't necessary, and even if you think the clarifications make for better prose, I don't see how the neutrality is compromised with those two sentences remaining the way they are, especially for the purposes of the GA criteria. czar 19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• ... you failed the article over two sentences? Please restore the review and request a "2ndopinion" instead. If another editor agrees, I'll make the change. czar 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

• I agree with the point "African politics did not impede the selection process". That may be true, but it's coming from a biased source. I suggest you find some way of acknowledging that the opinion may be biased that makes it clear to the reader, or find an alternative neutral source providing the same opinion. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• "organizers ask themselves 'what is necessary, what can be achieved, how [to] do something different'". This is a statement from the fair's founder., and as such can be taken as a fair comment on the organizers' motivation. I do not consider it necessary to change this providing the fair's founder is one of the organizers. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Pbsouthwood. The first quote wasn't meant to be so declarative, as it is when separated from the second clause about visas. Rephrased to be truer to the source czar 00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather different in scope, and now a neutral statement.

There is an ambiguous link to art fair in the lead.

Is there anything else you need an opinion on? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Swpb. I believe the outstanding items have been satisfactorily modified. As you basically did all the work of the review, I invite you to comment and choose whether to pass or fail the article. I have no reason to dispute the quality of your review besides the items for which a second opinion was requested, as the nominator seems satisfied. If you fail it I will feel obliged to take up the review, and unless I find something unexpected, it will pass. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood. Seeing the changes, I will not stop you from passing the article. The horrible taste in my mouth disinclines me to do it myself. —swpb^T 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I sympathise, and will deal with the formalities. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)