Talk:Kent, Ohio/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is very well written and only required a few minor copyedits.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Citations are adequate and meet citation guidelines. One minor issue is that a lot of them are placed in the middle of sentences, instead of at the end immediately following punctuation. Though this is minor and not really required by GA, I think it would be best to resolve prior to an WP:FAC.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article meets the WP:USCITY guidelines and contains all applicable material suggested. The only issue is that the culture section seems very short, and there's no introduction to it. It simply starts with mentioning some festivals. Resolved. WTF? (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article meets WP:NPOV guidelines. Though I'm not sure it's necessary to mention the Kent State shooting of 1970 in the lead. While it's certainly an important event, isn't it time to move on after about 40 years? Is the city of Blacksburg, Virginia going to mention Virginia Tech as the site of the Virginia Tech Massacre of 2007 for the next 50 years? I'm certainly not suggesting completely ignoring it, and including it under history is necessary. But I'm not so sure that it should go in the lead article of the city itself? Issue resolved -- see explanation below, which is reasonable and well stated. WTF? (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article is stable and there are no signs of edit wars or WP:3RR violations.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~The image 'File:Ksuarialshot1.jpg' (Kent State campus) has a tag on it that the categories should be checked.~~ Issue resolved. WTF? (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I think the article is very close to meeting the six good article criteria and can be promoted once the issues are resolved. I will leave it on hold at WP:GAN until then. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On Number 6, I added two categories to the image File:Ksuarialshot1.jpg via Commons. So that one should be taken care of. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the article carefully but I have to comment on #2 above - citations should be after the fact they support, and not in general at the end of the sentences, which can be misleading if a sentence contains several facts and not all are supported by the citation. It's also poor style to stack 2-3 citations at the end of a paragraph rather than after the distinct facts - it makes it more difficult to find the source. II | (t - c) 17:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree about the citations. When writing any article, I try to place them at the end of the sentence or paragraph only when they actually support the sentence or paragraph. When a sentence contains more than 1 cited fact, having them all stacked up at the end of the sentence isn't helpful to verify them. Are there any places you can specifically point out that would be better at the end of the sentence?

As for the mention of the Kent State shootings, that was a more recent addition. If you really feel it's not needed, take it out, but my reasonings for including it were because even 40 years later, it is still something that Kent is known for. Further, a new visitors' center is being opened and there are commemorations yearly, so it still draws people to Kent. While there are outward similarities with what happened at Virginia Tech (students killed on a college campus), the historical context is far different as well as the motive (still debated) and the main players (included a government entity), so it's not comparing apples to apples to use Blacksburg and Virginia Tech with this article. I look at it more like how Oklahoma City makes mention of the Oklahoma City bombing in its intro...true it's more recent, but its definitely something a lot of people still associate with the city and know the city because of even 15 years later.

Re: the culture section- I expanded it slightly to include mention of the May 4 commemoration (a yearly event which drew national coverage this year), the May 4 visitors center being developed, and the environmental festival hosted each year. I modeled it after the Culture section at Hillsboro, Oregon (FA class) which doesn't really have a formal introduction either. I added an introduction sentence, though I'm not sure how much I like it. It's a city of about 30,000 people, so it's not going to have a very large culture section if care is taken to mention only major events. The ones I included are those that are the largest and seemingly notable to more than just locals. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In checking the MOS for footnotes, it states the following at WP:REFPUN: "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after the punctuation..." (emphasis added) --JonRidinger (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While adding numbered citations in mid-sentence may be used by various wikipedians, it's not standard in publishing, and should be avoided. Professional publications put citations at the end of sentences after punctuation. But this isn't a huge issue that's worth holding up GA over. WTF? (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't imply it should hold up the GA review. I've been patiently waiting since May 10 since I nominated it. :) --JonRidinger (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate feedback on the other comments and changes that were made. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in very good shape overall, and most issues are now resolved. The culture section looks good, though I made a few minor copyedits and spelling corrections (very minor). The only real issue remaining is with the statement on the "nationally-recognized fashion museum". The language seems a bit 'flowery', and written more in a manner like someone is trying to persuade the reader to visit the museum, as opposed to an encyclopedia article that simply covering the facts. See WP:FLOWERY for Wikipedia's guidelines on this. Other than that, the article looks like it's in good shape. WTF? (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made sure "nationally recognized" has a third-party source so it's not simply a peacock term (which I am always looking out for believe it or not!). Did you find the source unreliable or simply non-supportive of the claim? The source I based that claim off is from a fashion industry website that lists the KSU museum as one of only 6 fashion museums across the US significant to those in the fashion industry. It's much more an assertation of notability than simple promotion IMO. "Nationally recognized" is the only descriptive, potentially POV phrase in the 2 sentences that describe the museum; the rest simply states what the museum has in its collection. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it. If there's doubt about the source, then it probably isn't a good source, at least for that phrase. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

The article now meets all six GA criteria and will be listed at WP:GA. Nice work! WTF? (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]