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

Reviewer: LavaBaron (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is the article well-written?

• In some instances a percent sign (%) is used in lieu of the word "percent" (see WP:PERCENT).

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 02:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The second sentence in "Self-storage and other services" is complex and difficult to understand without reading several times.

 Done Better? CorporateM (Talk) 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is the article verifiable with no original research?
3. Is the article broad in its coverage?

• The third paragraph in "Self-storage and other services" gives WP:UNDUE to mold and theft. The WSJ article seems to be using PS to examine an industry-phenomenon; I searched independently and could not find a substantial body of RS that supports the idea this issue is unique to PS. This would be more appropriate to an article on self-storage, generally.

It looks like only the first sentence is about the industry in general and the rest is specific to PS. Especially since the WSJ heavily focuses on PS, I thought it was reasonable to add context that it was an industry-wide problem. CorporateM (Talk) 03:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Highlighting the specific issue explained in the last sentence of the second paragraph in the same section seems WP:UNDUE. (I understand the point is to example the previous sentence.)

I included it because it had a strong source (Associated Press) and the article seemed to imply other sources covered it ("as the news spread"), but it's possible I have a skewed point-of-view, because it is always difficult to completely recover from an attack piece. I don't think it's appropriate for me to remove it directly due to WP:COI. Do you mind doing the honors? Or I can submit a Request Edit. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made these changes and passed it, CorporateM. LavaBaron (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is the article neutral?
5. Is the article stable?
6. Is the article illustrated?

• Yes, technically, though, more images - particularly (a) interior shots, and, (b) non-publicity shots - would be nice. There seem to be a number of CC-available images of the interior of PS locations on Flickr, though I understand the nature of the nominator's relationship with PS will probably preclude him from personally uploading them. Perhaps someone else can. Also, historical images.

How about this? I actually took it out originally because I thought there were too many. I put it back in just now. I can try Flickr too - not sure why that would be a problem - but this one looks good. CorporateM (Talk) 02:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has so far undergone a very cursory and brief review. In my opinion, it pushes the corporate investor POV, greatly overemphasizing the REIT business structure. It fails to adequately describe in sufficient detail the company's actual business - the rental of storage space to people who own too much stuff. The article has been largely scrubbed of content relating to its denial of legitimate insurance claims, non compliant marketing of insurance services, and its failure to provide adequate security to its ordinary everyday paying customers. It is understandable but disappointing that a declared paid editor should reshape this article in such a fashion, but completely shocking that a GA reviewer would rubber stamp it. I register my objection here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the characterization of "rubber stamping." GA criteria offer several points of assessment and articles are evaluated on those points. GA is not a means of divining scientific truth, nor is there an expectation reviewers by SMEs. The article met, and continues to meet, the GA criteria. The objection Cullen raises with respect to the REIT acronym was only broached by him/her post-GA; despite the fact he/she was active on this article for more than a year, during which the offending acronym was present. This suggests, to me, his/her concerns are being dramatized for the purposes of derailing an article on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, where "it" - in this case - is Public Storage. LavaBaron (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since at the time you posted this, LavaBaron, you had been informed an hour prior that the article did not meet the GA criteria—in particular the prose, given extensive punctuation issues, including inconsistent (and often incorrect) usage in otherwise identical phrases that should always be fixed before a GA is listed—the above denial rings hollow indeed. You were reviewing your first GAs, and you clearly either didn't understand the criteria or didn't have the tools to apply them in all areas. There's no particular crime in this—we all learn as we go—but your insistence that the article even now meets the GA criteria calls into question your fitness as a GA reviewer and as a judge of the other issues being raised. The fact that you're focusing on the REIT acronym, which I don't believe Cullen328 has questioned (he certainly didn't in this section), rather than that he believes there is far more emphasis than necessary on the REIT business structure and not enough on the actual storage business of the company, is telling. Cullen328, I think the only option at this point is a good article reassessment, as you believe the article is not at the point that it should be listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your feedback.LavaBaron (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]