Talk:Copia (museum)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 21:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read through the article and it looks to be in pretty good shape. I will work through it systematically, making notes as I go, and leaving the lead until last. Please indicate when you have addressed an issue, but please do not use strikethrough, as it makes the review difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of why the article was/was not awarded good article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are three refs with redirects (they don't necessarily need fixing) and three Napa Valley Register refs (8, 22 and 44) are dead. Unfortunately, they are not archived on the Wayback Machine or on WebCite. (See external links in the GA toolbox)

What are the refs with redirects? I only found one using the tool. Also, refs 8, 22, and 44 are working for me. I just saved them in the Internet Archive, so even if you couldn't view them before, you should be able to find them on IA now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Today there are lots of dead Napa Valley Register refs reported. It seems to be something to do with the fact that you can only look at a fixed number of articles per month, and to view more, you need a subscription. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is always avoidable if you use an incognito window. Then you can view as many articles as you want. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Background

• "The museum attributed its high projected attendance falling short partially due to the depressed tourist economy stemming from the attacks." This does not quite make sense to me. How about: "The museum attributed the number of visitors falling short of their projections to the depressed tourist economy stemming from the attacks." or somesuch?

Reworded. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi)

Conception and construction

• Is ...with urging from his wife... good American? It isn't good English. How about ...at the suggestion of his wife... or somesuch?

I speak English, not American; please don't misuse these terms. I'm going to tweak the sentence, however "at the suggestion of" implies more than what's asserted here. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline and bankruptcy

• ...local residents' support... seems a bit clumsy. How about support by local residents...?

I strongly prefer the current phrasing here, it seems to flow better. American English perhaps uses fewer constructions of that nature, instead preferring the use of apostrophes. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Something is wrong with At the time, Copia had $68 ($74.7 million today[6]) million in debt. It would read better as ...Copia had $68 million ($74.7 million today[6]) in debt. Again, is "Copia had $68 million in debt" good American? I suggest "Copia had debts of £68 million" or similar.
• Similar issue with (with $80 ($87.9 million today[6]) million in debt). Suggest (with debts of $80 million ($87.9 million today))

I fixed these, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• The New York Times and other newspapers described the museum's lack of focus and broad or unclear concept between serving as a museum, cooking school, and promotional center for wine is a single sentence paragraph, which is not recommended by WP:LAYOUT, and it doesn't quite make sense. See if you can expand it a little, and make it clearer.

It's usually not recommended, however it stands alone in what it's conveying; I can't just tack it onto another paragraph that talks about something completely different. Practicality before guidelines, please. Cutting out words, the sentence says that the paper and others described the museum's unclear concept between serving as a museum and promotional center. Does that make sense? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggested expanding it a little, and making it clearer, not tacking it on to something else. How about: "Writing about the failure of the project, the New York Times and other newspapers suggested that Copia had failed to clearly define its focus. Potential tourists were left feeling unsure whether they were visiting a museum, a cooking school, or a promotional center for wine." Bob1960evens (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That's good, thanks! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

• the CIA's new Food Business School. The abbreviation CIA is introduced without a proper definition. It needs to be ...Culinary Institute of America (CIA)... earlier, so we know it is not a clandestine school.

It's mentioned prominently in the previous sentence, so I wouldn't see why this should be necessary, but okay. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Write_out_both_the_full_version_and_the_abbreviation_at_first_occurrence. It should be introduced as ...Culinary Institute of America (CIA)... on first occurrence, and after that you can use CIA on its own if you want to. In this case it is particularly important, because CIA means Central Intelligence Agency to most people, and that is where CIA takes you if you type it into Wikipedia.

I fixed this. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• it was recently assessed for $21.3 million. Suggest adding a date, rather than "recently", as such terms are soon outdated, and the reader has no way of knowing when it was assessed.

Done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Facilities

• The 12-acre (0.019 sq mi)... I am not sure why you have converted acres to square miles here and further down, when room sizes are quoted in imperial and metric (square feet and m3). I suggest using acres and hectares (ha) for international readers.

Okay. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Ref 9 does not appear to support "Mondavi chose the downtown Napa location, with urging from his wife, who raised her children there".

It's on the third page of the online version of the newspaper article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 10 quotes $55M startup with $70M bond. The article states $50M startup and $78M bond. (Ref 19 uses $55M and $78M)

This was all taken from reference 20, well before my work on the article. However, the less-rounded and generally higher numbers, and more-cited numbers are usually the ones to go with. Fixing. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 4 is used to support " In 2005, Copia sold 3.5 acres (0.0055 sq mi) to Intrawest for construction of a Westin hotel" but does not appear to.

Paragraphs 17 and 19 of ref 4. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 15 does not cover "Original projections of 300,000 admissions per year were never met". It needs a source.

Which source do you want me to cite? Honestly information needs to be verifiable (able to be verified), it is not usually required to have a citation. Keep in mind this also predated my additions. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Any source that actually mentions the projection of 300,000 visitors will do. It is quite important in this instance, because presumably the costings were based on projected visitors. If the projection was 30,000, they would not have invested that much money. If it was 3,000,000 then you would suspect the whole basis for building it was flawed. As it was, they over-estimated the number of people who would turn up by a significant margin.

Referring to your comment "Keep in mind this also predated my additions", a good article review is assessing the whole article, not just the bits that you personally worked on. If you nominate it for assessment, then I am afraid you take responsibility for what others may have added. I have tripped over this one once or twice myself in articles that I have nominated, but it is just part of the process. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I'm adding a reference. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 20 does not cover "The museum closed on Friday, November 21, 2008". It just says November. (Refs 21 or 22 might do)

Fixed. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 26 does not cover "but their effort failed". (Ref 28 does)

Fixed. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I was unable to check refs 44 and 45, as Napa Valley Register wanted me to buy a subscription. However, most of the refs are used correctly, so I have assumed that these two are also used correctly.

See above mention of using an incognito window. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead serves to introduce the subject and summarise the article. Deciding just how long it should be is a bit of a black art, but I think it needs just a little more detail to adequately summarise the article. Perhaps you could mention Robert Mondavi and the museum acting as a catalyst for the development of downtown Napa in the first paragraph, with the farmer's market, Napa Valley College getting the books, and the Smithsonian getting Julia's utensils in the second.

Done, though the farmers' market has already moved elsewhere, so it's not important enough for the lede. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

First pass done. I have got the references to check next, and then the lead. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reviewing this! I'll look over and reply to your comments more when I get home tonight. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That is the review done. All in all, a well written and closely referenced article, with just a few fairly minor issues to fix. I'll put it on hold. If you need any clarification, paste it here or on my talk page. Best regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I am crazy busy working in a restaurant among other things; can you keep holding until I have proper time to respond? Thank you ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I will keep checking the page from time to time. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay! Finally have time to reply. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(←) Replied to all. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• As all of the issues raised have now been addressed, I am awarding Good Article status to this article. Congratulations. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am a bit unsure which subsection to list it under on the Wikipedia:Good_articles/Agriculture,_food_and_drink page. I have put it under "Food and Drink Companies", since that seems to be a slightly better fit than most of the other options, but am open to suggestions. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bob1960evens: I think that's appropriate. Thanks! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)