Talk:Jordan Geller/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: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look; this has been pending for way too long. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

As a heads up, this is going to be updated in chunks; there over eighty references to go through, so it will take me a while to look through each one to evaluate the extent to which the statements made in the article are backed up by the text of those sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Mikehawk10. Thanks for doing this review!! I'll try to resolve the issues by next week. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Not a problem! Just as a heads up, it is probably going to take me at least the next 24 hours to finish filling out the table. I’m only about halfway through the references at this point and I still need to do a thorough check for spelling/grammar/style. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (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.	The article states, Geller's name is coincidentally close to basketball player Michael Jordan, who is also the namesake of Geller's favorite sneakers. The article doesn't currently state explicitly what the name of his favorite sneakers are; if someone doesn't have knowledge of U.S. Basketball or the sneaker market, they might not know that this refers to Air Jordans The source for that claim (Las Vegas Sun) could reasonably be used to explicitly state that the favorite sneakers of Geller's are those of the Air Jordan line. This would improve understanding for a broader audience. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.	This indeed contains a reference list that is properly laid out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	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).	I'm seeing some references to Sneaker News. Its about page doesn't give me confidence that it has good editorial control (it seems like there might be quite a bit of churnalism going on based upon a quick look through the website). You don't need to use this source when referencing his degrees (The Oregonian works fine there), but the part where it's used to verify the $10 million in sales seems to not be the most appropriate use of at what's best an WP:ABOUTSELF interview (this sort of thing feels a bit WP:EXTRAORDINARY, even if he's an accomplished sneakerhead). Regarding the use of Sneaker News for the size of the warehouse, it's probably fine from an WP:ABOUTSELF perspective. I think that the Sneaker News interview probably isn't reliable for the Wikivoice statement that he made $10 million. I'd recommend avoiding the use of the source where possible. Obviously, there's been little-to-no community discussion on the source (at least from what I could find), but seeing as there should be mainstream sources for this kind of thing if it's notable I don't see this as a huge burden towards getting over the line. It's also a primary source interview, for which extra caution needs to be used in BLPs. If you'd like a source that isn't an WP:ABOUTSELF source for the warehouse size, this source from The Oregonian is unquestionably an RS in this context. The phrase Geller decided to sell off his inventory and use the money to "curate the world's greatest sneaker collection" in order to "show Nike who they'd banned" is currently in the article. The given source is Williamette Week, which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG, so the publisher is fine. The relevant text from that source is "I had this idea that I could sell off all that inventory and use the money to curate the world's greatest sneaker collection," he says. "I wanted to show Nike who they'd banned." While the newspaper reports that there's an idea to sell off all the inventory to make the collection, I'm not sure the source is writing that Geller's primary motivation in doing so was to show Nike who he was, so to speak. This could lumped under the WP:OR criterion as well, though I'm going to leave it here because I think that the inline cite doesn't support the text currently in the article rather than this being a WP:SYNTH issue. There's a statement in the article that 67 business executives visited Geller's museum. It's sourced to this article from Portland Business Journal. The article doesn't actually put that claim in the voice of its newsroom; it reports it as a claim made by Geller. As such, it's only as reliable for that claim as an WP:ABOUTSELF source would be, and I think it's a bit of an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim to be using Geller's own words for. It's certainly reliable for the notion that Geller said what he said, but I wouldn't be quite comfortable with putting it in WikiVoice. The reason given in the article for Geller's moving the museum to Vegas appears to arise from taking a quote of Geller's from this article and then accepting his explanation of his motivation as wholly truthful. It's probably better to attribute Geller's reason for moving to his words; something along the lines of Geller told The Las Vegas Sun that... would be a better alternative that renders the source clearly reliable for the claim being put into the Wikipedia article. This feels like a nitpick, but the sentence Out of the twelve Moon Shoes in existence, Geller's pair were the only ones that have never been worn is supported by this this CNN Source and this Vogue piece. The sources are a little less certain in their characterization than the article is; Vogue hedges with "is said to be" and CNN hedges with "only known unworn set" (emphasis added). Similarly, the claim in the Wikipedia article should probably hedge in a similar way. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	The sentence Geller and the ShoeZeum were included on lists of "wild," "weirdest," or "most ridiculous" world records by CBS News, Reuters, Business Insider, and BuzzFeed News feels like stringing a bunch of primary sources together. In general, I don't like these sorts of sentence formulations (it allows for listing of basically everyone who's made a comment and that can turn into WP:OR pretty quick), but in this case I think that it's restrained enough. It would probably be better to specify which source went with which list, rather than doing this WP:SYNTH-adjacent grouping. I don't think this is enough to hold up a GA nom on its own, so I'm marking it as neutral, though I think it could be improved. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	This passes a WP:EARWIG check; the tool flags more or less only direct quotations of a person speaking as potential copyright violation, so I see no need to worry here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	On my first read through, this article appears to cover all the main aspects of this individual well. A quick google search doesn't alert me to anything that's obviously missing, though there appear to be quite a few people in the news that share his name. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	On my first read through, the article seems to be focused on the article subject without being overly detailed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	On my first read through, it appears that this article follows WP:NPOV quite well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There are no recent edit wars nor massive expansions to the article content. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
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.	All images are tagged with copyright status on Commons; it appears to me that all of the image license tags are correct after looking through them. No images appear to be fair use, so all checks out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the topic. The vast majority show the impressive collection, which seems to be apt given that this is the reason for the subject's notability. All photos are suitably captioned. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for now. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2021 (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.

Fixes

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.

---

1. I mean I see your point but the sentence right before states: "Geller's parents refused to purchase him any Air Jordans as a child, deeming them too expensive, so he acquired his first pair of Air Jordans while in college for $125." I could write: "Geller's name is coincidentally close to basketball player Michael Jordan, who is also the namesake of Geller's favorite sneakers, Air Jordans." But that seems a bit redundant when juxtaposed with the previous sentence. What do you think?
2. b
   1. Yea, I had a feeling a reviewer is not gonna like the Sneaker News ref. But I tried my best to only use it for ABOUTSELF reasons vis-a-vis Geller. I managed to remove all four Sneaker News ref. I wasn't able to find a better source for the "$10 million" sales, so I removed it completely.
   2. I'm not sure if I entirely agree that's an OR/SNYTH statement. But, out of an abundance of caution, I removed the "in order to "show Nike who they'd banned"" part.
   3. Attributed to Geller.
   4. Agreed; rewrote per your suggestion.
   5. Okay, included the word "known"

2. c

Good call. I rewrote it a bit.

Pinging Mhawk10. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

All of the issues I've found are resolved. This is a GA. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2021 (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.