Wikipedia

Talk:Bell Tower (University of Portland)/Archive 1

< Talk:Bell Tower (University of Portland)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review
Archive 1

Sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

@Jonesey95 and Lockley: Might one of you be able to add coordinates to this article? Then, I can add a map. Thanks for any help in advance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

hi there @Another Believer: -- coordinates done, happy to help --Lockley (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lockley: Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago57 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bell Tower (University of Portland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed version.

Style

Resolved
  • The structure of the article is not strong. After the lead there are two sections, "Description" and "History", both of which contain information that may belong more under the other. The "Description" section is an roughly-organized collection of facts about the bell tower as a structure as well as the timetable of the bells, and the "History" section seems to contain everything else, though is at least chronological. To remedy this, it would probably need a restructure of its paragraphs to form sections that could include "Construction", "Design", "Bells", "History". — Does not meet Criteria 1b ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for [...] layout", "coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections") and would need substantial work to meet it.
  • The opening statement "The Bell Tower is a bell tower" does seem redundant. The start of the Description section does establish that it's a bell tower with the wikilink, so it might not be needed in the lead. This is just an opinion, though.
  • The third sentence of the fourth paragraph is a list that has a lot of clauses, some of which do not agree with each other. Ideally, it should be rewritten as multiple sentences, or with varied punctuation. (Criteria 1a "correct grammar", and 1b "complies with the manual of style guidelines for [...] list incorporation") Also, the statement at the end of this sentence "as of 2014" needs clarification, to show whether it refers to the whole list or only the last item. (1a and 1b)
  • The last paragraph of the Description section has two sentences that should be separated and used elsewhere, the last sentence is just a quotation about the Cross in Christianity, which doesn't belong on the article. (1a "clear and concise", 3b "stays focused on the topic")
  • The quotation of the second paragraph of the Description section could be rephrased as an embedded quotation, or made into a quote block. At the moment, it is just a quotation with "Danielson said:" in front. This is not "good prose" (Criteria 1a).
  • The third paragraph of the Description section is disjointed, the first sentence is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, and means it doesn't flow well. The other two sentences are simple quotations, and should be connected with prose. — Criteria 1a
  • The first sentence of the History section uses the wrong tense. In fact, there's some tense/phrasing issues throughout the section, as well as grammar, tense, verb issues. This section requires copyediting. - Criteria 1a "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct"

@Kingsif: Just a heads up, the article has now received a copy edit by a volunteer with the Guild of Copy Editors. These changes have been made to the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: looks good Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability

Extended content
  • In the lead, the statement "has served as a reference point for gatherings on the campus" should have a citation. — Criteria 1b (Manual of style lead section) and 2b (in-line citations) "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged [...] should be supported by an inline citation"
  • It may contain original research. Statements about the tower's use as a meeting point for students are unreferenced, and may be from the user's own knowledge. - Criteria 2c "it contains no original research"

@Kingsif: Apart from the copyright issue (which can be addressed separately in the section below, have your concerns in this section been addressed? If so, are you open to marking as resolved or collapsing so we can focus on remaining concerns? Not required, just trying to be organized here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, this section is resolved, good job. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Coverage

Extended content
  • The article, as a whole, does contain a lot of information about the tower when it was planned, in the last few years, as well as structural details. It may need more information on history and construction. Tentatively meets Criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic"
  • There are several areas where the article rambles, and others where it includes unrelated information (see Style). It does not meet Criteria 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail".

Neutrality

Extended content
  • For the most part, it is written with a neutral point of view (Criteria 4 "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each"). However, undue weight seems to be given to the unreferenced statement that it "has been used as a reference point for gatherings", which appears in the lead and again in the History section, which could be seen to be aiming to give more weight to such gatherings. In theory, the statement should be removed for having no source and potentially being original research, so this wouldn't matter should that happen. At the moment, it's something to be careful of.

Stability

Extended content

Illustration

Extended content
 
Image 1
 
Image 2
  • There is one image in the infobox and another in the article body. The body image seems redundant, adding nothing extra than the infobox, especially in a relatively short article. Tentatively meets criteria 6b, because the value of the body image isn't clear, it could be replaced with an image of one of the events mentioned, or the bells.
    • I added the second image because it provides a sense of scale by showing a person as well. I'd be open to replacing this one with another showing detail of the tower. I've taken some photographs and will upload them to Commons soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I thought I took more photographs of the tower than I did, but I've shared 2 here for consideration. I'm not sure either are worth adding to the article, especially given its short length, but let me know if you disagree. Next time I'm in the area I'll try to photograph the Latin phrase above the door, and perhaps the bells, if possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
          • Those images are good, I particularly like image 2. Currently the whole tower is in the infobox, which should ideally stay. Any other images can be added where the article is long enough. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

Extended content
  • There are no major issues, though from this report on one source used, the facts and quotations taken from the source aren't well paraphrased, and should be written more originally.
    • @Kingsif: If you run another report using the current version ID, you'll see violation is unlikely and there are a couple quotes shown as problematic but really they are not in violation of appropriate attribution. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • @Another Believer: Of course, quotes given attribution are no issue. But plain text is. From these (1 2) reports, it shows that the entire phrase "within an existing Marian garden next to the Chapel of Christ the Teacher" is taken from sources. This is the only remaining concern in this regard, though. I might just rephrase it, though. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I have rewritten this.

Because of grammar, formatting, verifiability, subject focus, and copyright issues that together amount to quite severe, this article would need substantial work to meet Good article criteria. Therefore, I will fail the article nomination. (Justification for immediate failures: 1 "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", 2 "It contains copyright infringements", and 3 "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid") Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for reviewing this article and returning here to reply to my questions. I am committed to getting this article promoted to Good status when the time is right. I am currently traveling, so I need to take a short break from addressing your concerns (there are not too many left to resolve). I don't mean to put any more work on you, but if you want to take a stab at improving how the quotations are incorporated, or make other wording changes, you are more than welcome to make improvements rather than having me guess and ping for further review. Of course, either way I will revisit this review and make further improvements to the articles once I am settled back at home. Thanks again for your help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: That's great to hear, I might contribute a bit, because I feel it is getting close to be nominated again. Remaining issues with some prose and clarity, and the outstanding paraphrasing, once resolved I hope you nominate it again. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Yes, concerns are close to being resolved and I do plan to renominate once you give the go ahead. I will try to upload my photographs soon as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: No rush, but you've mentioned a willingness to address your own final concerns, so I'm wondering if you'd like to do so before we decide if re-nominating for Good article status is appropriate. I can't thank you enough for revisiting this review as many times as you have. I think the article is definitely in a better state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, I have now made some style tweaks and rephrased the copyright concern. That seems to be most of it. Nice article. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thank you! Would you be comfortable with me re-nominating for Good status? You're welcome to complete the review, or leave for someone else. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Archiving this review as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Nomination 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At this time, there are too many issues for this to be a Good article. However, I hope that my review has detailed what needs to be done and that it can be improved! I'm a big supporter of university landmarks getting good coverage on Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Huh, I am quite surprised by your assessment. Haven't failed a good article nomination is quite a long time, and usually I am given time to address concerns before an assessment is complete or an article failed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@AnotherBeliever: I guess I'm sorry about that, but my justification for a speedy failure is at the bottom. Of the 4 different reasons a nomination could immediately fail, this article meets 3 (when it only needs 1). The sections need better formatting, there's some lack of necessary citations, it needs copyediting, as well as some rewriting to resolve potential copyright violation. Those things can't be overlooked, and unless editing this page is your full-time job, it's significant work for most people. I really mean it when I say I want it to be good, though. Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

@Twofingered Typist: I noticed you removed the link around Mary garden when you changed "Mary garden" to "Marian garden". I'm curious if this was intentional. Should we link "Marian garden" to Mary garden? I admit, I was not familiar with the term, and others may be unfamiliar as well. Thanks for reviewing this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link back! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: We had an edit conflict and my note to you was lost. I was going to say Mary Garden linked to an opera singer. I didn't think to try Mary garden which is the link we wanted. I fixed the error in that article where Mary Garden appears in error! I've scanned the comments by the GA reviewer, some of which surprise me. Have a look at what I've done and let me know if you want me to go through their comments in detail and see if anything else needs to be done. I can't see why it would fail in its current form. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: Thanks, and sorry for the edit conflict. If there's anything you feel particularly strongly about, feel free to comment, otherwise I think User:Kingsif and I are working together nicely to improve the article. I plan to re-nominate for Good status again soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: No, that's fine. Best of luck moving forward. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: Thanks, and thanks again for taking time to review this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell_Tower_(University_of_Portland)/Archive_1&oldid=858538511"