GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

No issues upon inspection of article edit history and talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 25, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pretty good, yes. I would merge the short paragraph in subsection: Personal and family.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. If there are notable publications as sources that are redlinks, would it be possible to create stubs for them? Not sure if it is appropriate to have "Newsbank" in the publisher fields - the original publisher is the publisher of the publication itself, newspaper's publisher, etc.
3. Broad in coverage?: Could Biography subsection be split up into two or so sub-subsection headings?
4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone throughout.
5. Article stability? See above.
6. Images?: See above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newsbank removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think either of the two remaining redlink publications are very notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bio sections split.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two might be notable enough to start articles on:

Cirt (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch this page for further updates. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)@ Royalbroil - Thanks so much for offering to take a look - please take a look at the points I have raised on this page and then keep us posted back here. :) Cirt (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points to address

  1. Copyediting, preferably from one or more editors previously uninvolved with the article.
  2. Improvement on flow/readability.
  3. Odd structural format - per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a summary of the article, and yet there is this awkward second summary in the article's body itself Career summary. Also Career highlights sounds awkward as well, should just be one section Career in chronological order.
  4. Personal and family - appears out of chronological order - the "family" info should ideally be up with Early life.

Please respond below. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Your sudden copyediting complaint seem arbitrary and without substatiation. I.E., in almost all cases where this is requested a list of substantial errors is enumerated. Here after putting my through hoops of creating redlinks, etc. you suddenly claim this arbitrary fault.
    2. See above.
    3. It was previously structured in one Career section and changed upon your request.
    4. This personal and family stuff is not early life info, but rather how her family effects her career. It deserves a separate section and even has a FU image.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts by User:Royalbroil

Chronological order

Why does the article need to be chronological? Lots of good and featured articles are topical. This article was done topical. I normally do and like chronological order, but on my first GA attempt I was pushed by an experienced and knowledgeable mentor into doing the Mario Andretti article topically. It survived a recent GA evaluation. I do agree with Cirt that her notable sister, who she has been associated with, should be included somewhere in the lead. It's very rare for someone other than the main reviewer to pass an article. Are you sure that you want to yield the decision to me? Royalbroil 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, yes I defer to you on that decision, as I stated on your user talk page. The sister is already mentioned in the lede - and then does not appear again until the very bottom of the article - despite the fact that she was conceivably born prior to the time period of the events discussed in that subsection (2002). The body of the article's chronological order at present is: 1992 through 2009, then the next subsection is 2000 through 2005, and then 2002 through 2005. Very disjointed and a jarring read. Sure if it were a topic about something else, chrono order within each subsection, with each subsection ordered topically or thematically would be okay - but this is an article about a person. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll need to read it again. I'll watch for the problems that you have outlined. I'm need some time, I have a busy weekend planned. Maybe I can sneak it in some time. Royalbroil 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading
More