Talk:Peter Isaacson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this one a look as well, hopefully later tonight! Canadian Paul 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Paul, you'll remember me from the Dave Shannon GAN just recently. Having expanded the Isaacson article recently with another editor, I'd intended to nom it for GAN after adding a little more material, if available, on his later life, but the nom took place without any discussion before I had a chance to do that (note to nominator here). Since you've picked it up already, let's run with it, but if you can delay your review for a couple of days it will give me a chance to see if we can't get a little more detail -- at least some dates -- into the last section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just give me a heads up when you want me to look at the article. Canadian Paul 03:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I think we're ready for you now; just added a few more dates and tweaked a couple of little things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

I went through and did a copyedit, mainly focusing on issues related to WP:NAMES and WP:DATESNO, as well as punctuation usage, while trying to stay away from anything that resembled our national differences in writing styles. Overall, however, this article seems to meet the Good Article status except for some small issues that I had with the lead:

1. With regard to the effectiveness of summary in the lead, a good rule of thumb is to include information from every section of the article; currently there's nothing from "Early life".
   • Yes, fair enough, will probably add something re. starting on a newspaper when he was a youngster.
2. The lead says "Since 1956 he has served as a Trustee, Chairman, and finally Life Governor of the Victorian Shrine of Remembrance," but the body says "Isaacson is a Life Governor of the Victorian Shrine of Remembrance, having previously served as a Trustee from 1956 to 2000, and Chairman from 1983 to 2000.", which states that he is not currently a trustee (even though he still has an association with it). Thus the lead (he's still a trustee) and the body (he was no longer a trustee after 2000) contradict one another.
   • The main body is correct. The lead was meant to summarise his offices but I guess it appears from the wording that he was adding offices rather than going from one to another. What if I reworded to "Since 1956 he has served successively as a Trustee, Chairman, and finally Life Governor..."
3. Finally, and maybe this is just me and there's nothing that can be done, but I feel like the lead focuses heavily on his publishing career whereas the article itself focuses more on his military career. I think that what throws me off is that the lead first mentions his publishing, then talks at length about his military service, then returns to his later life/publishing. Not sure if this is a big deal or not, but it's just my observation as a reader.
   • I guess the way we've tried to write it is to establish his notability in the first paragraph and then add further, chronological, detail in the second paragraph. If we added the snippet from his early life (per above) to the start of the second para, would that make it more logical?

So to allow for these issues to be addressed I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll try to check this page daily, but it might be a little on and off for the next several days. Either way, I don't anticipate too much of a problem with passing this article. Canadian Paul 04:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Many tks for copyedit and review, Paul -- will await your replies (and give my co-editor Richard a chance to weigh in) before modifying the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding numbers one and three, both of those sound good. Regarding number two, I must have been far more tired than I thought I was last night, because even after having re-read the sentence several times I thought it said "Since 1956 he has served as a Trustee of the Victorian Shrine of Remembrance." What is currently there makes sense, so I wouldn't add any extra words. I've gone ahead and stricken that concern so that your co-editor doesn't waste his time time with it. Canadian Paul 21:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Paul, always good to keep the editors honest... ;-) Okay, have made changes to lead that should cover points 1 and 3. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well everything looks good now, so I will be passing the article for Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you once again for all your work! Canadian Paul 21:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of Richard and myself, tks for taking the time to review, Paul. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)