Wikipedia

Talk:Not My Presidents Day/GA1

< Talk:Not My Presidents Day
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago58 comments3 people in discussion

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply


I will be reviewing this page today. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl: Pinging you, in case you don't receive a notification on your talk page like I did. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Another Believer: thanks for the head's up. I should be available all day to address any issues. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Assessment

edit
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. Well written. Just a few minor mistakes I found:
Suggest replacing or removing "literally" in "while Trump was literally the president", as it gives the phrase unnecessary emphasis.
"demonstrations were held in outside" > remove "in"
"went into the evening" should be reworded
"group called "Bad and Nasty' Baltimore" a "day of art and activism"" is missing a verb
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. MOS:LEADALT suggests that editors "... balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability". While "Not My Presidents Day" and "Not My President's Day" are clearly widespread, I'm not entirely convinced of the notability other two spellings. Their inclusion is also so similar that they don't add much to the article in terms of information.
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. Nothing more to add.
  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). The vast majority are well established local media outlets but also nation-wide big ones. No sketchy sources detected. There are two by Sputnik and RT but they are used uncontroversially. In short, no issues with their reliability.
However, a clear problem is that the article contains many quotes and/or words and phrases within quotation marks that are not directly attributed. Per MOS:QUOTE's subsection on attribution, these should either be replaced with your own words or explicitly attributed. EDIT: Most of these should be reworded. Per MOS:QUOTE, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words."
  2c. it contains no original research. Everything in the article is sourced.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Clean.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article is missing a section on reactions, views, support, effect, criticism etc. (easily combined into one section) from accross the US. What influence did it have? Did any prominent politicians have anything to say about it? Did the organizers follow up with anything? There should be plenty to find on this.
More information could also be added to the civil conflict infobox. There were seemingly some other methods than demonstrations such as vigils, leafletting and picketing. Also: what were its goals? Did it have any notable lead figures? What were their goals and what did they achieve? Were any of those arrested ever charged, detained or fined?
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Remains consistently concise.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Factual information on the events and no apparent editorializing. Well done.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Remarkably, no edit wars. The recent merge discussion could have been a problem but overwhelmingly rejected the applicability of the older decision on the current article. Ergo, the article can be declared stable.
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 uncontroversial. The one that isn't from Flickr is credited by VOA to belong to their own agency and is therefore free to use.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. While the maps are interesting, they unfortunately clutter up the article at the moment. Especially the large United States map takes up a lot of space. While this is not necessarily wrong, the article already contains numerous other images and media files which makes it a bit of an overkill. Is the United States map necessary? Or could some of them be moved or made smaller?
  7. Overall assessment. Most of the work has already been done. If the remaining issues can be resolved I will alter the respective criteria ratings. Let me know if there is anything you wish to be clarified or don't agree with.

Discussion

edit

I propose addressing your concerns in a bulleted list below:

i will also note that, while this does not have anything to do with sourcing about this evening specifically, the Washington's Birthday article includes Presidents' Day in bold text in the lead as an alternate title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ah, of course. It completely went over my head that that spelling takes on the spelling of "Presidents' Day". I'll change it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • 2a:   Done
  • 2b: @Prinsgezinde: You said, "However, a clear problem is that the article contains many quotes and/or words and phrases within quotation marks that are not directly attributed." However, both Megalibrarygirl and I are surprised by this comment. Can you be more specific? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi Prinsgezinde, I've added more to the section and expanded out the planning section, too. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • 3b:   Done
  • 4:   Done
  • 5:   Done
  • 6a:   Done
  • 6b: Unfortunately, the maps cannot be made smaller without the text getting jumbled together. You find the maps 'interesting'. User:Megalibrarygirl and I both like the maps, as does the editor who we reached out for help at the Graphics Lab. No editor has openly stated a problem with any of the maps, and this article has received quite a bit of traffic and feedback given all the discussions on the talk page and on other project pages. Perhaps the US map could be collapsed?, but I don't really know if that is preferred. Are you open to leaving the maps because they do not go against Good article criteria, and we can just see over time if editors raise any concerns about their inclusion? If we find them helpful for the purposes of illustration, then I think we should consider leaving them, at least for now. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • It is a well done job, absolutely. And I would hate to see it gone for the sake of looking pretty. I was only slightly concerned with the amount of media on the page. Perhaps when more text has been added there will be more space for it? For now, be assured that this is not a case for failing the article. I'll change the "neutral" to "?" for clarity's sake. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • 7: Discussion below

@Megalibrarygirl: Feel free to add your own within this framework as you see fit. Just trying to make this an organized discussion since we have more than 2 editors, and I'd prefer not to enter comments into the table above for the purposes of organization and simplicity. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Another Believer:, I'll try to address 3a right now. However, I'm confused about where we used quotes and didn't attribute. I didn't think that had happened. It seems like we'll have to comb through each reference and double check. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl: Yeah, I didn't really think this would be identified as a problem either. I am addressing some of the other concerns right now, but will try to revisit. Thanks for taking a look as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
As I said, not all are necessarily quotes. Some were phrases and/or words within quotation marks. But these still need to be attributed (meaning not only cited) or adjusted to avoid becoming scarequotes or simply gratuitous. But also remember that in many of these cases, simply removing the quotation marks and (if necessary) rewording it slightly gives a better result. Examples from the article:
Good (attribution clear, actual quote):
  • Participants reportedly chanted "We need a leader, not a creepy tweeter" and sang "God Bless America" and "The Star-Spangled Banner".
  • The protests in Miami and Palm Beach were organized by South Florida Activism, and included a gathering at Palm Beach International Airport where participants turned their backs to Trump's motorcade en route to Mar-a-Lago, wearing shirts that displayed "No 45."
  • The group who protested outside of Wheeler's home obtained a permit for the demonstration, however, the organizer, Gregory McKelvey, also said that the mayor is "perpetuating this idea we only get hurt or sprayed or physically beat because we don't have a permit."
Bad (not an actual quote, not attributed or gratuitous):
  • The 16th Street Mall and nearby streets were shut down for around two hours, but no arrests were made and businesses experienced "limited disruptions". (Who said this?)
  • Only 18 people expressed interest in attending the event on its Facebook page, and fewer than ten individuals ended up participating. The protest reportedly saw "five or six people arguing with a lone Donald Trump supporter".
  • State senator, Art Haywood, attended the Philadelphia rally and there was a "family-friendly fun station" set up for children of protesters.
  • A "modest gathering" in Pasadena was organized by a small group of "concerned" mothers and their children, led by Jenna Karvunidis.
  • In Ann Arbor, a "Bad Hombres and Nasty Women" event featuring "uncensored performances" expected an attendance of 600 people; proceeds benefited Planned Parenthood.
  • The "uncensored performances" part.
  • The event attracted around 50 participants; candles were distributed and lit to represent the "flame of progress to be held unwavering in the future".
  • One protester was tackled by the police and then shot with "non-lethal projectiles".[106] One man who was "one step off the curb" in the street was pushed to the ground by police, had his arms pinned to his back and then was pepper-sprayed in the face; and a woman was shoved to the sidewalk and then shot with "pepper balls" by police.
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I removed the quotation marks around 'non-lethal projectiles' and added 'reportedly' in front of "one step off the curb". ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand the problem. I am quoting the news articles or whoever was reporting. Do we really need to say "according to a report" each time? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
According to MOS:QUOTE, yes. It is a quotation after all. But I stress that in many cases they don't need to be quotes. Simply remove the quotation marks and make it fit the sentence. For example, "non-lethal projectiles" in the above-mentioned sentence does not need to be within quotation marks. "modest gathering" can simply be changing to "gathering" (again without the quotation marks). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK, I tried to make improvements, but please let me know if additional concerns remain. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Much better. I went through the article again and there are only two quotations left that I see as inappropriate. Both are in the second paragraph of "Locations and activities".
  • It lasted into the evening and had a reportedly "different tone than elsewhere in the rest of the country, with less protesting, more talking".
  • Reword or give credit to who said it, as this is a largely subjective statement.
  • A group called "Bad and Nasty' Baltimore" organized a "day of art and activism", which included face painting, sign making, and a workshop titled "our Democratic Heritage".
  • "day of art and activism" is too generic to put between quotes. Quotation marks can simply be removed here. The other two quotes are fine, although I'm pretty sure the single apostrophe after "Nasty" is not supposed to be there.
After fixing these I'll change the criteria rating. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Prinsgezinde: I added "CBS Baltimore" to the first and removed quotes around "day of art and activism". Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Good job there, that's another thing done then. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Prinsgezinde, I merged some of the media (NY and Oregon in particular) and did some image staggering. I quite like how the article is illustrated, but let me know if you have any concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, what exactly was done? I'm noticing a much better lay-out but can't determine the specifics. I see some new maps and less separate external media boxes but would like to hear it from you. Thank you. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sure, so here's a diff (feel free to ignore all of the reference formatting and just focus on the media changes). Not major changes, but really I just merged the External media templates in the New York and Oregon sections, lined media up along the right side of the page and made them the same width, giving a very uniform appearance. I also did some image staggering in order to minimize section heading disturbances. The text in the US map was too jumbled in the Northeast, so I removed NY entries and created a new map for this state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Got it. As mentioned above, the last step is in coverage. The two things that still need expansion are Infobox content and the Aftermath/impact/followup section. When those are expanded the lay-out will change again. With more space, some more things could be moved to the right to avoid the section heading disturbances you mentioned it should be noted that differents screens have different resolutions, so one person's lay-out may not be exactly the same as another's. That's why large content is preferably on the right side, but it's not mandatory. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Right now, only the NY section heading is disturbed, which does not bother me. I think the current layout looks great, but we'll see if any further changes are helpful if the article is expanded further. I'm at a loss for what else to add to the article re: outcomes, goals, etc., but I'll see if Megalibrarygirl has other thoughts. Most of the sourcing is logistical in nature, describing what took place and when. Opposition to Trump is obvious, but other goals? Not clear, or at least not specific and uniform thoughout to note in an infobox, in my opinion. I also don't think there are any single leaders worth noting in the infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Some figures seem important. They don't need to be actual "leaders", just leading figures of the movement. Holly Hughes had a big hand in organizing it, and Gregory McKelvey was noted for his organizing of the problematic Portland event. Also, I meant a single section for the aftermath. It could have subsections for reactions and impact etc. The thing is, of course media would report the events as they happened. But the article needs assessment sources, if you know what I mean. Perhaps some of the groups that participated in the demonstrations have material on their website? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, singling out any specific organizers would be giving them undue weight. This event was a series of local events, not a 'movement', and there were not primary national organizers like there have been in other recent protests. Megalibrarygirl may have a differing opinion, but I don't think we should emphasize local organizers and put focus on some over others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
"civil conflict" infoboxes are commonly used when there are two clear sides. The other side in this case could contain "Pro-Trump protesters" or even "Portland police"; though it also wasn't truly a conflict (except maybe in Portland), so it's also worth considering swapping to Template:Infobox event. Either way, the current infobox doesn't say anything that isn't already in the lead. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Megalibrarygirl and Prinsgezinde: Prinsgezinde, I am not sure if Megalibrarygirl is still tinkering with things or not, but at this point I think we could both use clear, specific needs in order for this article to meet GA criteria. See my comment above re: local organizers, and do you have a specific section heading for groups the reactions and impact sections? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Aftermath" is standard. It can include reactions, impact, possible followups and anything inbetween. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I placed the Reactions and Impact sections under an Aftermath heading. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh I like that so much better. Thanks, Another Believer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Prinsgezinde: Please let us know if any outstanding concerns remain. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sincere apologies, I was unexpectedly busy and only able to access Wikipedia on my phone (which is still a pain). As above, consider changing the infobox to "Infobox event" if it can't be expanded otherwise. The rest seems to be in order. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Prinsgezinde:   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm very satisfied with the result. It was only my second GA review but it went quite smoothly, all things considered. The article is now considered a "good article" and I'll be adding it accordingly. Thanks to you both for the cooperation. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking time to review this nomination. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Not_My_Presidents_Day/GA1&oldid=967082317"