Talk:United States Climate Alliance/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Lots of good work has been done on a fairly new topic. As noted below there is more work to be done to get this up to GA. I am new to GA reviewing myself but am happy to work through what we can together. Bear with me if some of the ratings change as I enlist help of other experienced reviewers to check my work.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Lots of good references and statistics in this article. I noted one place in which a statistic seems unsupported by the evidence.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This seems like the biggest need of this topic. What work has this group done? It's mentioned in the lead that it forms a forum (which is a phrase I find awkward but doesn't necessarily cause a fail for clarity) but there doesn't seem to be any support for that or what work it entails in the article itself. There is no mention of any reaction/criticism of this group's efforts which a quick Google Search reveals at least some existance of. I would encourage you to take a look at GA/FA of some of the identified projects to get a sense of what other topic headings might be appropriate.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The work needed referenced in criteria 3 would help me to fully evaluate this but what is written does appear neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Several major issues, no active editing to address.

Too soon?

This article right now is rated "start class", and while it isn't unusual to skip classes to WP:GA I noticed right away multiple issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually suspect the samething but actually figured that could be useful for my first review for WP:GA. Barkeep49 (talk)

The condition of the article is more important than the class rankings, which aren't always accurate unless they're B or higher. This article was promoted from Stub to Start on June 3, 2017, two days after its creation. It's been edited over 500 times since then and is now about 4,000 bytes larger and it was at promotion. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well just my two cents, but you should consider copyediting the four paragraphs which all begin with "On X date...", On X date...", On X date...", On X date...". The whole flow of these mini paragraphs doesn't go well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Argento Surfer

I was asked by Barkeep49 to look over the review and offer some feedback since this is his first review.

• I use criteria 1A to highlight any part of the text that I think could be improved. Sometimes this is minor, like the addition or removal of a comma. Other times, it's more significant improvement, like rearranging a paragraph for better flow or narrative. This is typically the most extensive portion of my reviews. I haven't read this particular article in its entirety, but one thing that I would suggest if I were doing the full review would be in the fourth paragraph of the History section. Instead of "By the evening of June 1 the state governors of seven other U.S. states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia) announced ", I would recommend "By the evening of June 1, the state governors of Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia announced". This removes the need for the parenthetical. These kinds of suggestions are always open to alternatives or rebuttal, of course.

Some reviewers will make these corrections themselves, but I prefer to let the nominator do it unless it's truly something minor.

• On 2B, you'll want to specify which statistic you're talking about so the nominator can correct it.
• On 3A, your comments are spot on. Considering how much is missing from this article, you might consider a quick fail on it. Significant effort will be required to add whole sections on function, accomplishments, praise, and criticism. It's not the GA reviewer's job to guide the creation of major content.
• On 6B, you could pass this without issue since the lone image does not need a caption. I think the addition of descriptive WP:ALTTEXT would be helpful, but in my experience most reviewers don't require this for GA.
• On 7, unless you intended to quick fail it, you should have used "hold" instead of the "n" value. This creates a purple clock icon and lets the nominator (and maintenance bots) know the review is still ongoing. I've updated it for you to avoid an automatic fail notice being generated on the nominator's talk page.

Those are the only comments I have for now. Nice work for your first outing as a reviewer. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer:Thanks so much for those thoughts. Really helpful. Is it typical for people to go deep on 1A? From reading guidance articles I wanted to be careful not to impose what I think is good writing on these users. Barkeep49 (talk)

It depends on the article. I try to focus on clarity/punctuation/typos/run on sentence-type issues, so the number of things I find per review vary pretty widely. I also word my comments so the nominator knows any points I raise are up for discussion, especially if I'm unfamiliar with the subject. I can only think of one time out of 47 that a nominator expressed initial unhappiness with the volume of requests I made, but in the same comment he said most of them improved the article and thanked me for my thoroughness.

When I'm the nominator, pretty much all the requests made by reviewers help me become a better contributor. For example, I'd never heard of the ALTTEXT I mentioned above until a reviewer told me I needed it. I've also been directed to essays on writing good plot summaries and review sections that have improved my writing.

Interaction with your nominator will be the best guidance, though. If you get too rigorous, they'll probably let you know. I've seen some reviews where the nominator requests the GA be failed so they can re-nominate and get a different reviewer, but that's usually because of a dispute on a more serious issue like the reliability of a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)