Talk:Pie house/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 03:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@ PCN02WPS

So I believe that's all have to say about this article. Have a look at my comments in your free time and feel free to voice your opinion if you disagree with something.

I found this article pretty cool! Chilicave (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! Seems like a pretty interesting article. Will be reviewing it in the next few days.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments:

Verifying reliable sources:

RS (1) - no issues

(2) - no issues

(3) - seemed a little strange to me at first because it's a blog, but through research it turns out to be a viral blog, author is reputable and this blog is used in other reputable sources acc. to this website https://www.ahml.info/scheduling/reservation/91639 Seems to meet the exception acc to WP:SELFPUB - no issues

(4, 5, 6) - no issues

(9, 10, 11) - no issues

(7,8) - to be honest, I'm still doubtful of my verification abilities so I'm just gonna ask for a second opinion in regards to this.

Other nitpicks

a. "The house is trapezoidal in shape, rather than the traditional rectangular shape" - source (3) doesn't explicitly mention the house being "trapezoidal" in comparison to a standard "rectangular" shaped house. It does mention that it's "irregular' though...

b. "It was listed for rental on Airbnb shortly afterwards, in October 2020."

I don't see source (10) explicitly mentioning that the house was listed on Airbnb on October 2020. I do however see that the article was published in that month. But, how can we make an inference based off of the publication date that this house was listed on Airbnb in the month of October? (Please correct me if you see something I'm not). For now, I would suggest rewording this sentence.

c. "Despite outcry from neighbors"

The word "outcry" kind of sounds exaggerated and may interfere with the neutral tone of the article. Perhaps use another word like "disapproval."

d. "The house is two stories tall, and has a finished basement". Taking into particular consideration of the bolded words, source (6) does not mention anything about the leveling of the house. Other sources that I see do...

e. "The house is two stories tall, and has a finished basement.[6] It has more than 1,600 square feet (150 m2) of floor space, and contains two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and an additional half bathroom.[6] The ground level of the home follows an open concept plan."

This entire paragraph cites source (6) multiple times. Per WP:CITEFOOT, you can remove the first two inline citations and keep the last one at the end:)

f. The wiki link for "US$" is pretty straightforward in itself. I would unlink it. It also looks a little awkward next to the numbers.

Second opinion by Thebiguglyalien

I would not consider Only in Your State or LADbible to be reliable sources. They both appear to be low quality content farms or otherwise lack legitimate editorial oversight and journalistic practices. A discussion about LADbible in 2020 didn't get much participation, but consensus seems to lean against using it. I also notice that The New York Post is cited: this source generally shouldn't be used (I suggest avoiding "these sources are incorrect" type statements altogether because there's no source actually calling them incorrect). When there's uncertainty around a source, the reliable sources noticeboard can weigh in, and the perennial sources list tracks the most frequently discussed sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Thebiguglyalien! Chilicave (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Status?

@Thebiguglyalien, Chilicave, and PCN02WPS: where do things stand here. It looks to me like the reviewer(s) found some problems with unreliable sources and now we're waiting for that to get fixed, but that was like 6 weeks ago. If this can't get wrapped up soon, I don't see any alternative but to close this as a failed nomination. RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Since we received no response to the review, I will go ahead and fail the article. @PCN02WPS, you can definitely renominate this article in the future once these concerns have been addressed. Thanks Chilicave (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This totally fell off my radar (clearly) and at this time I don't really have the desire to work on it further - I appreciate the time spent on the review in any event. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)