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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Images are appropriately tagged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Coverage. Article appears to cover most of what a reader would expect of a general encyclopedia entry on the subject. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Article seems balanced - dealing with various aspects of the subject's life and career, both good and bad, in a fairly neutral and even manner. The only quibble would be the amount of attention paid to the arrests in relation to the rest of the article, though I understand the subject is well known for the arrests, so detailed coverage seems appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

• Article is mildly unstable. Semi-protection is in place, though some disruptive edits are occurring; this is to be expected of a high-profile subject. However, there is also a pattern of revert editing over editing issues. It is to be expected that articles which are listed as GA will be stable, so if there are disagreements over edits, then discussion regarding the appropriateness of those edits will take place on the talk page, not on the article itself. Edit warring over singer/not singer, hidden text, etc, should not be occurring. Is there a way to prevent or reduce this from happening in future? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are four images of the subject with little variety between them, and one poor quality image of subject at a wrestling event, the significance of which is not made clear by either the caption or the section text. Are all these images justified? Do they meet the GA criteria WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE? Can other, perhaps better quality, more pertinent, more interesting images be found? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A discussion point is the amount of coverage of Personal life and Legal incidents in comparison to the rest of the article. Coverage of his acting, for example, which is mentioned in the lead, is dealt with in two short paragraphs which amount to little more than lists which are later repeated, while his various arrests, which are not mentioned in the lead, are detailed over several paragraphs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

• Prose is not clear, and contain errors, and unencyclopedic language. "the singles "Who Am I (What's My Name)?" and "Gin and Juice" reached of the top ten most-played songs in the United States", "Broadus' father left the family when he was three months old", "banned him from entering the country on character grounds", etc. There are a lot of short paragraphs. Sometimes several in sequence - this gives a choppy feel to the article, inhibiting reading flow. Information is frequently crammed in, so it is difficult to make sense of what is going on. The third paragraph of the lead is a good example of information cramming. Do all those albums need mentioning in one paragraph? The article would benefit from some good copy-editing. The Guild of Copy Editors may be able to help. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead does not accurately summarise the article per WP:Lead. The context for the lists in the Filmography section is not clear, especially as the lists are different to those in the linked Snoop Dogg filmography. The language in the article is not professional, and uses several of the words to watch. We also have occasional use of "Snoop" when the full name should be used, per MOS:SURNAME. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The statement that the subject was frequently in prison after leaving school is vague; it is sourced to AllMusic, which is generally regarded as reliable, but it is a tertiary source, so in a BLP, one would expect such information to be from a secondary source, and for GA article to be somewhat more detailed. And there are numerous content6ious statements that are entirely unsourced, such as "Snoop Dogg made history by becoming the first artist to release a track as a ringtone prior to its release as a single", "The album and the second single "That's That Shit" featuring R. Kelly were well received by critics", etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Is "Los Altos Hospital in Long Beach, California" correct, as I can't find much info on that hospital. I'm seeing mentions of the hospital in relation to Snoop Dogg being born there, but sometimes sources may copy incorrect information. As there doesn't appear to be a hospital under that exact name - nearest I can find is Los Alamitos Medical Center-Los Alamitos, CA - is the name perhaps slightly wrong? Or is there such a hospital, but I haven't yet found it? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, reliable sources differ on his birth date. Biography.com and Allmusic.com, equally reliable sources, give different years. Choosing one over the other is POV. Additional research may yield more sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This site [1] gives the 1971 date, citing California Birth Index 1905-1995. I've seen wargs.com cited before, though I've no idea how reliable it is — it seems to be the site of an amateur genealogist. This particular ancestry was compiled by this person, William Addams Reitwiesner, and "considerably revised and expanded by" Christopher Challender Child, who notes it "should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative". If we take that source's birth date, though, we would also have to take the full name given at the same place, citing the same birth index: Cordozar Calvin Broadus Jr., rather than Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. Man, is this a mess. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

Information on the subject, Snoop Dogg, has been collected and presented in this article. Some work now needs to be done to tidy up that information so it is clear, readable, and firmly sourced. I suspect there is more work needs doing than can be achieved in a reasonable space of time, however, I have done reviews in which article have been turned around when there has been a willing nominator an/or several significant contributors putting in the work, so I will keep this open for an initial seven days to judge the response. I tend to keep reviews open as long as positive progress is being made, even if that takes months. But I will close if no positive progress is being made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SilkTork, I suggest failing this; this hasn't really improved in the seven days you've given. I personally would not have put this on hold to begin with since there are too many problems with unsourced content and prose (including really short paragraphs which are discouraged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS). Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as unlisted. Snuggums - there are many who would agree with you, and guidance is to quick fail if an article is a long way from meeting criteria. However, I would rather wait seven days to see what happens; holds are cheap and give folks a chance. Early closures sometimes cause concern and complaints. And I have known many articles to be improved during a hold, even if they didn't at the end meet the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]