Talk:Penumbra (law)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I will be taking on the review for this article, expect a full review by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (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 below issues that I have identified have been rectified; "penumbra" <- every instance of this word is in quotes, this is unnecessary, if you want to emphasize the word the put it in ''penumbra'' to italicize the word. There are a lot of things in quotes, why not paraphrase them. Not all need paraphrasing but generally the majority of an article is written without quotations.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	My comments have been addressed satisfactorily on this point. Words to watch This is the only major concern I have with this criterion and the article's adherence to it, there is quite a bit of weaseling. Examples; "Scholars describe" "Contemporary analysts have described" "Other commentators report" "Some writers suggest" "Some scholars have argued" "One commentator has even stated" "However, other commentators note" "One analyst even wrote" The above come from just two paragraphs in the article, the paragraph on Penumbral reasoning and the first paragraph of Scholarly analysis of penumbral reasoning. The issue with these is that the fall under the purview of Weasel words which is defined by Wikipedia as "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" and "[a] common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis." In this case the vague attributions are "some scholars", "comtemporary analysts", "other commentators" and so forth. To all of this I append the question, "to whom are these statements ascribed?" or who are these "some". Another issues is "even wrote" there is no even wrote, there is only wrote. A final issue is, per WP:SAID, it that "[s]aid, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate" and are preferred over words such as "suggested", "argued", "note" and so forth. There are many examples of these throughout the article and in so far as I have found are the most pressing issue at hand. This can be addressed relatively quickly, but, must be addressed before GA.
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.	It provides all of its sources but there's a couple questions and notes I have about the layout of these sources. 1. Page numbers are cited as Rev. why? what is Rev.? 2. Full names are listed in the citation, e.g. William J. Watkins Jr., instead of, Watkins. W.J Jr. 3. The date should come right after the author, rather than at the end. 4. You have created each reference yourself (I mean the template) instead of using {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}}, any particular reason for this? are none of these suitable substitutes that could easily be amended and would render the citations in an already established format. An explanation has been given for the variant citation format, perfectly acceptable to keep it as is.
	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 article uses reliable sources throughout, as such I have no concerns about this criterion.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Weasel words are an issue, other than that, I believe this criterion has been satisfactorily met, but, I will go through a couple sources and check that this is indeed the case. Weasel words have been cleared, any identifiable use of weaseling has been backed by sufficient sourcing and explanation.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	False flag was reported by Earwig's copyvio detector, it was caused by the extensive use of quotations in the article. Note; I highly doubt that a copyvio has actually occurred, merely, because Earwig cannot identify if something has been attributed, that quotations have showed up as a false flag.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Having read the article and looked at a couple of its sources I am fairly confident that this article covers the topic well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays on topic without straying and without unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article makes good use of its sources and presents opposing views evenly, however, my concerns with the use of weasel words renders this criterion as failed for the time being. Once the issue of weaseling has been dealt with I can amend this criterion to a pass as I have no other issues with it. Rectified through 1b.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has been in a stable state for months, there was a discussion on the talk page about a linking change but that has been stable for nearly a year.
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.	The third image is a bit of a weird one in terms of licensing but "Publication and other forms of distribution: Permitted" as per the library of congress.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images have appropriate captions that help to explain the content.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes GA

I will be using the above table for my review. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not forgotten, I'll be at it either tonight or tomorrow morning. Sorry for the delay I have been busy. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Notecardforfree, I have completed my initial review of the article, there are some issues that can be rectified relatively quickly. My review notes are in the above table. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary responses

@Mr rnddude: first and foremost, I want to thank you for agreeing to review this article. It is an exceedingly complex and arcane subject; I admire your willingness to dive into the heart of things with this review. I have already begun to work on your suggested modifications, but I want to offer a few preliminary responses:

• Placing the term "penumbra" in quotation marks (1a): To be honest, I'm not really sure why I chose to do this when I first wrote the article. I think it was to distinguish the technical use of the term from the metaphoric use of the term, but in any event, I agree that it should not be placed in quotation marks every time. I think I have successfully resolved this -- I have only kept the term "penumbra" or "penumbral" in quotation marks when the article is describing the definition the word, rather than actively using it in a sentence.
• Missing quotation mark (1a): I fixed this (see this edit).
• Use of quotations (1a): Quotations are extremely useful for ensuring that the description of an author's idea, theory, etc. are accurate. Nevertheless, I your point is well taken; I will go through the article over the next few days to paraphrase some of the quotations.
• Words to watch (1b), (2c), and (4): I agree that the quotations should be attributed to the authors that wrote/said those things. I will go through the article over the next few days to provide the necessary attributions.
• Citation style (2a): The citations are written in Bluebook style, which is ubiquitous in American legal scholarship. The use of this style is perfectly acceptable per MOS:LAW and WP:CITEVAR ("If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it").
• Earwig's results (2d): Earwig's tool produces many false positives for articles, like this one, that (1) use many technical terms of art and (2) utilize a large number of quotations. As you noted, editors should not rely on pure numeric results alone.

I'll be sure to ping you once these changes are made. In the meantime, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding points 1 and 2, understood and thanks for the fix. Point 3 I agree that quotations are useful, it's just that there are quite a few of them and I think that may be why Earwig thought copyvio's had occurred. Point 4, sure I can wait a few days for the attributions to be implemented no problem. Point 5, I hadn't encountered the citation style before hence my comments, I tend to work on ancient history article's and make extensive use of cite-book and cite-journal templates, leave as is in that case. Point 6, refer point 3 comment, Earwig is fine for a preliminary check but it's really quite necessary to do it yourself or you may miss something (or expect a vio where there is none). I had a copyvio report where Wikipedia may have violated copyrighted material from the University of Iowa, turns out, the university had just whole sale copied Wikipedia and apparently passed it off as their work (I didn't note any attribution for the original source, Wikipedia). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

One other thing, I mentioned in the table, but, you can just italicize the word penumbra (like so), it'd be perfectly fine as the article is specifically about the word and therefore emphasizing the word (subtle emphasis) is pretty normal. Just a thought. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Just a quick update re fixes to the article -- I am wrapped up in interviews/meetings today, but I will return to working on this article later tonight or early tomorrow. Many thanks for your hard work with this, and I hope you are enjoying a nice start to your week. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Notecardforfree, thanks for the well wishes, I am currently on break from GA (due IRL) and will return to it by the tenth (possibly tomorrow depending on how busy I am). Feel free to ping me if you need anything and I'll respond as soon as possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

8/15/2016 update

@Mr rnddude: I apologize for not finishing this earlier, but I have gone through the article and I have implemented the changes requested in your GA review. Statements should now be properly attributed to the authors that made those statements, and most of the quoted material has been paraphrased. Let me know if there is anything else that you think needs to be done. I also moved around some text to help improve the flow/readability of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost everything cleared; Notecardforfree, "Scholars characterize the term" <- "just change this sentence to The term is a metaphor ...". It would be preferred if the article made a statement of fact rather than the vague attribution to "scholars", in other cases where the term scholars has been used its been adequately backed by sources and explanation, but, in the lede I'd avoid all such attributions as they won't come pre-packed with a load of citations (per WP:LEDE). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: For that particular sentence in the lead, the sources provide "substantial basis" the assertion that scholars characterize the term in that manner (per WP:WEASEL). Nevertheless, I have re-phrased that sentence to resolve any potential issues. Thanks again for taking the time to do this review -- I very much appreciate your eye for detail and the thoroughness of your analysis. Wikipedia needs more GA reviewers like you, and I hope that you continue your good work! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)