Talk:Landscape urbanism/GA1

GA Review

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.	Fail. While it is clear that editors have recently made efforts to improve the article, and while these efforts are commendable and have made a difference, there are still issues in the prose. For instance, in the second sentence, why refer to a span of years? This article could potentially be online longer than the editor is on this earth. Refer to specific decades rather than unclear timeframes ('late 1990s' rather than 'the last fifteen years') so that the article can age well. In the lead, how does the conclusion that Landscape urbanism is a response to changes in the planet logically follow from what comes before? From what I read, it appears that landscape urbanism grew out of critiques of modernism, not environmental issues. The history section is well written and clear. To improve clarity, make sure that every sentence, and every tidbit of information has a reason for being in the article. When adding new information, ask yourself why you are adding it where you are, then whether it would make more sense elsewhere. Ask yourself whether the statements of fact you are making follow logically from the facts that came earlier in the article. The sentences are internally sensical, meaning I can glean a point from everything written. But try unpacking comma splices by reordering sentences that are overloaded with commas. Just because a sentence is readable does not make it a good sentence. For instance, the sentence: "Peter Connolly separately used the term ‘landscape urbanism’ as the initial title for his Masters of Urban Design project proposal, presented at RMIT in Melbourne, Australia, two years earlier, in 1994." could be improved by shifting it above any mention of Charles Waldheim and moving some important information (dates / places) to the front of the sentence. For clarity's sake, it could read: "In 1994, Peter Connolly used the term 'landscape urbanism' as the title for his Masters of Urban Design proposal at RMIT Melbourne." It also seems from this sentence that Connolly coined "Landscape urbanism", not Waldheim. If Connolly used the phrase two years previous to Waldheim, why is he not being credited with coining the term? Hard to say.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fail. My notes from above apply to the lead, as the lead is approximately 40% of the content of the article. Leads should stand alone, should not give large amounts of information not included in the rest of the article, should explain why the article is important, should give context to the article, should talk about controversies (and I can tell from the talk page there are a few), etc. Please read WP:LEAD and rewrite the lead accordingly.
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.	Fail. The article does not appear to cite sources for all of its claims. Notably, where is the citation for Peter Connoly's Master of Urban Design project? Where is the citation for the last sentence of the lead? The History section is missing several citations. Where can I find the information about the Graham Foundation conference in the first sentence of the History section? These missed citations make the article unverifiable. Read WP:V for information on the importance verifiability. There is also some confusion in the article on what a citations actually are, and where they go. Citations should co-align with the reference list, or should be entirely in the notes section. There is a large reference list, but information in the article is not cited, and so the reader has no way of knowing what information comes from what source, again damaging the article's verifiability.
	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).	Fail. As stated above, there are two distinct reference lists in this article. The notes section either needs to be incorporated into the reference section, or the reference section needs to be incorporated into notes. In either case, most of the possible inline citations seem to be missing from the article. Reliability is a small problem in the article. The fourth note is a bare URL. Wikipedians should not cite bare URLs in their references because these links can change, and are susceptible to link rot. If the link changes, your citation is gone forever without more information about the link. Try using a reference template in the citation tab when you are editing the article, and accurately fill out as many of those fields as you can, or find a different source. Please see WP:IC and WP:RELY.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fail. Without including accurate inline citations, there is no simple way of determining whether the article contains original research or not. Claims like the last one in the lead appear to be original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fail. I get a general idea of what Landscape Urbanism is, but where are the critiques of the movement? Why does the history end in the 1990s? (History extends from the archeological past to about a minute ago, and a history section should reflect that) Are there multiple perspectives on the movement? Again, hard to say. There appears to be a lot of information left on the table. More research is advised.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. The article does stay focused, but there is a paucity of information in the article to begin with. No reason to fail it in this category.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fail. The talk page reveals that an entire set of negative opinions about Landscape urbanism have been suppressed. These should be researched, cited, and reinstated to create true neutrality. Suppression of dissenting voices is itself a bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Hard to say. The current page appears to be the current result of a slow motion content dispute, but the dissenting side has not edited the page in quite some time.
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.	Neutral. There are no images, and thus no need to rate this section.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fail. While the GA criteria states that images are not necessary to be a GA, the guidelines state: if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided. Find examples of Landscape urbanism projects in cities around the world, incorporate a discussion of those projects into the article, and include pictures of those projects.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article has failed its GA review. The article is improving, but has a long way to go before it conforms to GA criteria. Editors are to be commended for their continued efforts on the article. Continued revision, research, and a consistent application of WP:MOS will aid editors in improving this article until it reaches GA standards. At that time, I urge editors to resubmit it. Thank you.

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 17:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)