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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article. This is my first review so by all means tell me if I am doing something wrong. RP9 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I corrected many of the prose issues, a few remain
   - honor is US English and humour is UK English
   - "He represents furry fans to science fiction fandom and the wider world, and gives talks on presenting furry fandom to the public." Could you make this more clear?
   - Unnecessary red links should be removed. (Don't worry about this I am just being picky.)

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead, headings and formatting look good.
   - One sentence paragraphs should be expanded.
   - A see also section may be helpful.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Sources are placed correctly and where appropriate however the sources themselves need work.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Sources 2, 12, 16, 33 and 43 do not seem reliable.
   "Conway is the author of eleven professional publications and claims three patents" and "He was also a director of the Great Valley Nature Center." need non-primary sources.
   5, 6, 8, 35 and 40 do not work but appear to be reliable.
   7 provides no context and I am not sure if it is reliable.
   19, 20 and 21 links do not work but I am quite sure are reliable.
   22 needs to be linked to an archive and is reliable.
   The whole MAD Scientist Network section needs better sources.
   I do not have access to 48 but it seems reliable.

   C. No original research:

   All facts are sourced but not all the sources are reliable.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article mentions and goes into detail about what he is notable for.

   B. Focused:

   The Other activities section is rather extraneous. Perhaps it could be condensed into one detailed paragraph or merged with other parts of the article? This would also fix the MoS compliance.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Of the sources that are reliable, the information is balanced. Sources need to be fixed before a final say.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable, most reverts are due to vandalism.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are tagged properly and all are free.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Plenty of images are provided. Captions are descriptive and relevant.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article needs a lot of work, especially the sources. Because I believe the sources can be fixed in a timely manner, I am putting the nomination on hold. I can help find sources. RP9 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Passed! This definitely deserves to be a GA article. Congratulations! RP9 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies one by one: GreenReaper (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further replies added. GreenReaper (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources 2, 12, 16, 33 and 43 do not seem reliable.

  2 can almost certainly be replaced. I'll have a look.

  Replaced with two regular news articles and a Wikinews article.

  Great sources! RP9 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  12 is a statement directly from the subject regarding a panel that he conducts. I have a picture of him conducting it (not that you can tell). There are a few mentions of it in online program guides but all they tend to say is the name of the panel and "Conway"; would this or a reference to an offline convention program book be sufficient?

12 is fine. Seeing that it is a forum set off red flags but it is clearly his post. It would be nice to have an additional reference to a guide though. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what I can here. MFF and FWA are the third and fourth largest furry conventions respectively.

The FWA source is based on cookies and defaults to 2009 unless a year is selected from the main page. I added a tag to force it to 2008. RP9 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! GreenReaper (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 16 references a quote directly from the subject regarding their response to media. There is no reason to believe that it is untrue, although we could adjust it to make it clear it is his assertion about what he says if that is the issue. As for whether he is saying it, the history of that newsgroup poster matches expectations - started in 1997/1998, talks about fandom presentation, AC stuff and other things that the subject would be expected to know about. The email address used is mentioned in passing as his (granted, that is not a reliable source itself, but it's more for peace of mind).

The only issue with 16 is that it should be clear he is saying it. "He says his standard response was '...'" RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed.

• 33 is a statement by Tom Brady detailing the charity auction in which Conway is participating. He is mentioned in the list of board members of Midwest Furry Fandom which runs the con. There are several potential references similar to this - this is a statement from Foxberance of RBW UK regarding his attendance at their convention, for example. Or we could use Vanity Fair page 8 which calls Kage "the bespeckled auctioneer" (the fact that it is the charity auction is in a previous section).

33 is fine. I did not see the email before. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 43 helps to give context but can be removed since the book itself is a source for the non-controversial plot information mentioned; I have done so.

• "Conway is the author of eleven professional publications and claims three patents" [needs non-primary sources].

  The reason I previously adjusted that line to put "claims" right at the front was because is a claim from him, not an objective statement of fact. Would "claims to be the author of eleven professional publications and three patents" be any better? I will ask the subject if he has a more complete list to hand; it would not be definitive by itself, but it could allow us to independently confirm his authorship.

That is fine, however it does not explain much to the reader ( "What publications?" "What are the other 2 patents?"). RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. I found and added several key publications and one patent relating to work in the area of hepatitis B compounds; the fact that more keep turning up from the period gives credence to his statement. I will ask the subject if he can provide a complete list - however, recent surgery may delay his reply beyond the GA review period. I've moved the publication history section after the statement above to help provide context. GA allows articles that "do not cover every major fact or detail".

• "He was also a director of the Great Valley Nature Center." [needs non-primary sources]

  I am tempted just to remove that as their history page does not list any directors, and he is not currently a director. I guess I could email them . . . but they would then have to put a page up listing their historical directors which they might not even have records of.

  I found that they list their directors in their Form 990s but do not have them for the period he was likely to be a member of the board (1999). I removed the statement until I can obtain the exact year(s) of his board membership and proof thereof.

• 5, 6, 8, 35 and 40 do not work but appear to be reliable.

  I have managed to fix all of these. At least the new ones are all shorter than the originals.

All good RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 7 provides no context and I am not sure if it is reliable.

  Is this (he's item 26) any better? It states clearly that it is about graduate degrees, acts as a reference for the supervisor, and is linked directly from the group homepage.

Yes. That will do. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 19, 20 and 21 links do not work but I am quite sure are reliable.

  Oh, that is annoying - those news sites keep breaking. I have fixed them too.

All clear RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 22 needs to be linked to an archive and is reliable.

  I have added a direct link to the MP3, is that what you had in mind? I do not think we can archive it ourselves - it may be a fair-use snippet but it is not free content.

Does Dublin 98 FM have an archive of it by any chance? RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on their site, but the answer appears to be "no". They're not exactly NPR.

• The whole MAD Scientist Network section needs better sources

  Hmm. Not sure what else to do there. There is an assertion that he is a member and has been for some time, and a profile (albeit self-written) on their website about him (ref 5), with a matching (kinda :-) photo. A search under his name in the list of produces a multitude of answers; this seems a simple enough observation that could be confirmed by any reader visiting the link. If your concern is the assertions about MadSci itself, perhaps one of these news articles would be better?

This was quick thinking on my part. Source 3 confirms that he was a part of it. The others are fine being backed up by 3. You could also use 1 just to further back it up. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• I do not have access to 48 but it seems reliable.

  For your peace of mind, copies of "Leighton boy celebrates 5 years after": [1] [2]

• honor is US English and humour is UK English

  Well, honor is that way because "guest of honor" is a specific phrase used by conventions. Humour there is because I am British, but I would be willing to change it since this is about a U.S. citizen.

Actually honor appears in the article twice (in the Vocalist section). Both times its used its part of a phrase. However I find this and this to be rather ironic. Do what feels right. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have extracted the "u" from "humour".

• "He represents furry fans to science fiction fandom and the wider world, and gives talks on presenting furry fandom to the public." Could you make this more clear?

  Probably. I was trying to be concise, but it is talking about two slightly different things.

  I've separated the two - the second has been placed in a section below. On second thought, I've just cut the bit about representation. It tells rather than shows, and there's plenty of showing to make it superfluous.

• Red links should be removed.

  Which and why? They seem to be to topics that should ideally exist (arguably some of the companies are non-notable). Some do not, but that is not the fault of this article. Being picky, "few or no redlinks" is a FA requirement derived from the MoS for linking, which is not one of the six GA MoS criteria. I can however try to create some of them as stubs - they are relevant to WP:FURRY anyway.

All I really meant was, remove any that will probably never be created. Sofawolf Press, ConClave and HistoriMorphs for instance should stay linked. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - indeed, I should certainly stub those. As for the others: I've removed indolyne (not to be confused with indoline) and also Avid Therapeutics (given that it was bought out in 1997 by Triangle Pharmaceuticals, who were themselves acquired by Gilead in 2003), Message Pharmaceuticals (died in 2004 as best I can gather) and Cerexagri (merged with United Phosphorus). Never is a long time; and even those I thought non-notable may not be. For example, West Pharmaceutical Services sounds pretty small and boring, but it's actually an 85-year-old public company on the New York Stock Exchange and has many potential stories to be told about it. Joe Mayhew has links from elsewhere, others are published that may be written about (even if automatically) in the future. I replaced the link to the illustrator of Six with their fandom name and an explanatory link in the External links section; they do not go by their full name in the fandom, though you can confirm it on their website. MadSci actually had an article, it just wasn't named the same thing. The journals should all have articles in time.

• One sentence paragraphs should be expanded. The Other activities section is rather extraneous. Perhaps it could be condensed into one detailed paragraph or merged with other parts of the article?

  Agreed. Can probably merge some of those in the other interests section, I was trying to make it fit layout-wise but it probably makes more sense just as a section.

  I've now done this.

  It flows much better now. RP9 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A see also section may be helpful.

  Do you (or anyone) have suggestions for articles not already mentioned in the body? The navbox below provides all the furry topics I can think of that are potentially relevant. I would link 2, probably in the body, but his article has been deleted.

If you can't think of any, then it is not needed. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]