Talk:Bell Tower (University of Portland)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed version.

Style

Resolved

The structure of the article is not strong. After the lead there are two sections, "Description" and "History", both of which contain information that may belong more under the other. The "Description" section is an roughly-organized collection of facts about the bell tower as a structure as well as the timetable of the bells, and the "History" section seems to contain everything else, though is at least chronological. To remedy this, it would probably need a restructure of its paragraphs to form sections that could include "Construction", "Design", "Bells", "History". — Does not meet Criteria 1b ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for [...] layout", "coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections") and would need substantial work to meet it. @Kingsif: I don't see a need for a "Construction" section, but I've moved bells-related content to a new section called "Bells". What do you think? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC) That's great, the formatting of sections is very good now. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The opening statement "The Bell Tower is a bell tower" does seem redundant. The start of the Description section does establish that it's a bell tower with the wikilink, so it might not be needed in the lead. This is just an opinion, though. I believe this has been addressed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved The lead is well-written and mostly complies with guidelines, giving a good overview (see Verifiability). Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC) In the first sentence of the Description section, the term "Marian garden" should have a wikilink. — Criteria 1 "appropriate use of wikilinks" I changed "Marian garden" to "Mary garden". ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved The first sentence of the fourth paragraph includes the statement "...which chime daily and seasonally", which is unclear; what is meant by "chime seasonally"? Are they rung more on Christmas Day than other days? — Criteria 1a "the prose is clear" @Another Believer: Even with the edits, this is still unclear Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: As below, resolved Kingsif (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The third sentence of the fourth paragraph is a list that has a lot of clauses, some of which do not agree with each other. Ideally, it should be rewritten as multiple sentences, or with varied punctuation. (Criteria 1a "correct grammar", and 1b "complies with the manual of style guidelines for [...] list incorporation") Also, the statement at the end of this sentence "as of 2014" needs clarification, to show whether it refers to the whole list or only the last item. (1a and 1b) @Kingsif: I've rewritten this to: "As of 2014, the bells ring the hours starting from 9am to 10pm. They are ring the Angelus at noon and 6pm, various hymns depending on the season at 3pm, and the university's alma mater at 10pm." Does this work? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: The punctuation has improved, but it's still not completely clear. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: — edit conflict. Yes, this is good now. Resolved (edit conflict) @Kingsif: Oops, I meant to say "They also ring..." Do you have any specific requests or suggestions? Never mind, thanks for marking as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The last paragraph of the Description section has two sentences that should be separated and used elsewhere, the last sentence is just a quotation about the Cross in Christianity, which doesn't belong on the article. (1a "clear and concise", 3b "stays focused on the topic") I've removed the quotation with this edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved Most of the second paragraph of the History section is irrelevant. (Criteria 3b) I disagree. I'd say the bells being used in an album recording to commemorate the tower is relevant. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Ah, then it needs rewriting. It doesn't mention that it's commemorative at all, it just says an album was recorded by the university before the tower opened. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Kingsif: I've replaced "Prior to the tower's opening..." with "To celebrate the tower's opening..." Does this help? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: Yes, that fixes it. Resolved Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The last paragraph is interesting. Glad you think so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The quotation of the second paragraph of the Description section could be rephrased as an embedded quotation, or made into a quote block. At the moment, it is just a quotation with "Danielson said:" in front. This is not "good prose" (Criteria 1a). @Another Believer: Even with the edits, this part still needs better incorporation. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The third paragraph of the Description section is disjointed, the first sentence is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, and means it doesn't flow well. The other two sentences are simple quotations, and should be connected with prose. — Criteria 1a @Another Believer: This has improved (now 3rd and 4th paragraphs of Design section), but is still clunky. Kingsif (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The first sentence of the History section uses the wrong tense. In fact, there's some tense/phrasing issues throughout the section, as well as grammar, tense, verb issues. This section requires copyediting. - Criteria 1a "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct" I've already requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, and will take another look at the prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Kingsif: Just a heads up, the article has now received a copy edit by a volunteer with the Guild of Copy Editors. These changes have been made to the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: looks good Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability

Extended content

In the lead, the statement "has served as a reference point for gatherings on the campus" should have a citation. — Criteria 1b (Manual of style lead section) and 2b (in-line citations) "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged [...] should be supported by an inline citation" This sentence is meant to summarize the following contents. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) In that case, is it possible to use in-line references from various sources that mention it being used as a meeting point? Kingsif (talk) I went ahead and removed the sentence. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved Good ref list and external links. Meets criteria 2a. Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The sources appear reliable. Meets part of criteria 2b (see above). Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) It may contain original research. Statements about the tower's use as a meeting point for students are unreferenced, and may be from the user's own knowledge. - Criteria 2c "it contains no original research" I've used the exact same wording in other Good articles I've written, but I'll take another look. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) See comment above; can you use references from multiple sources that show this. Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I am not using my own knowledge. The candle service and demonstrations are evidence of people using the tower as a reference point for gatherings. However, I went ahead and removed the sentence with this edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved It may contain copyright violations - Criteria 2d (see Copyright). Can you be more specific? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC) In the Copyright section below. Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Kingsif: Apart from the copyright issue (which can be addressed separately in the section below, have your concerns in this section been addressed? If so, are you open to marking as resolved or collapsing so we can focus on remaining concerns? Not required, just trying to be organized here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: Yes, this section is resolved, good job. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Coverage

Extended content

The article, as a whole, does contain a lot of information about the tower when it was planned, in the last few years, as well as structural details. It may need more information on history and construction. Tentatively meets Criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic" There are several areas where the article rambles, and others where it includes unrelated information (see Style). It does not meet Criteria 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". @Kingsif: I've removed a couple quotes and sentences. Are there still specific problems needing to be addressed here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: The paragraph on the album recording could be trimmed down, but since we're discussing that elsewhere, this section is now otherwise resolved Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Extended content

For the most part, it is written with a neutral point of view (Criteria 4 "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each"). However, undue weight seems to be given to the unreferenced statement that it "has been used as a reference point for gatherings", which appears in the lead and again in the History section, which could be seen to be aiming to give more weight to such gatherings. In theory, the statement should be removed for having no source and potentially being original research, so this wouldn't matter should that happen. At the moment, it's something to be careful of. I removed the sentence in the article body. I adjusted wording in the lead as well, specifically mentioning vigils and demonstrations instead of "reference point for gatherings". Does this address your concern? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Stability

Extended content
There appears to be no edit wars, and it does not massively change frequently because of content disputes or edit issues. Meets criteria 5. Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Illustration

Extended content

Image 1 Image 2 There is one image in the infobox and another in the article body. The body image seems redundant, adding nothing extra than the infobox, especially in a relatively short article. Tentatively meets criteria 6b, because the value of the body image isn't clear, it could be replaced with an image of one of the events mentioned, or the bells. I added the second image because it provides a sense of scale by showing a person as well. I'd be open to replacing this one with another showing detail of the tower. I've taken some photographs and will upload them to Commons soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I thought I took more photographs of the tower than I did, but I've shared 2 here for consideration. I'm not sure either are worth adding to the article, especially given its short length, but let me know if you disagree. Next time I'm in the area I'll try to photograph the Latin phrase above the door, and perhaps the bells, if possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Those images are good, I particularly like image 2. Currently the whole tower is in the infobox, which should ideally stay. Any other images can be added where the article is long enough. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

Extended content

There are no major issues, though from this report on one source used, the facts and quotations taken from the source aren't well paraphrased, and should be written more originally. @Kingsif: If you run another report using the current version ID, you'll see violation is unlikely and there are a couple quotes shown as problematic but really they are not in violation of appropriate attribution. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: Of course, quotes given attribution are no issue. But plain text is. From these (1 2) reports, it shows that the entire phrase "within an existing Marian garden next to the Chapel of Christ the Teacher" is taken from sources. This is the only remaining concern in this regard, though. I might just rephrase it, though. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I have rewritten this. The images used have appropriate free copyright tags. Meets criteria 6a. Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Because of grammar, formatting, verifiability, subject focus, and copyright issues that together amount to quite severe, this article would need substantial work to meet Good article criteria. Therefore, I will fail the article nomination. (Justification for immediate failures: 1 "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", 2 "It contains copyright infringements", and 3 "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid") Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for reviewing this article and returning here to reply to my questions. I am committed to getting this article promoted to Good status when the time is right. I am currently traveling, so I need to take a short break from addressing your concerns (there are not too many left to resolve). I don't mean to put any more work on you, but if you want to take a stab at improving how the quotations are incorporated, or make other wording changes, you are more than welcome to make improvements rather than having me guess and ping for further review. Of course, either way I will revisit this review and make further improvements to the articles once I am settled back at home. Thanks again for your help. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: That's great to hear, I might contribute a bit, because I feel it is getting close to be nominated again. Remaining issues with some prose and clarity, and the outstanding paraphrasing, once resolved I hope you nominate it again. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Yes, concerns are close to being resolved and I do plan to renominate once you give the go ahead. I will try to upload my photographs soon as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: No rush, but you've mentioned a willingness to address your own final concerns, so I'm wondering if you'd like to do so before we decide if re-nominating for Good article status is appropriate. I can't thank you enough for revisiting this review as many times as you have. I think the article is definitely in a better state. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, I have now made some style tweaks and rephrased the copyright concern. That seems to be most of it. Nice article. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thank you! Would you be comfortable with me re-nominating for Good status? You're welcome to complete the review, or leave for someone else. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Archiving this review as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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.