Talk:Burnside Burn/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Upon inspection of article edit history = no issues going back a few months. I warned an IP editor for vandalism, just so it's there for future reference.
2. Looking at article talk page = just seeing constructive helpful notes by GA nominator.

No outstanding issues, no problems here. Next, on to Image review. — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Burnside Bridge (south side) with motorboats.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
2. File:Portland Oregon - White Stag sign.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
3. File:NORML videographer - Seattle Hempfest 2010 - 01.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
4. File:Cannabis leaf.svg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
5. File:Flag of Oregon.svg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y

Image review check = good. Next, on to Rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest of review

• NOTE: Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing quality is indeed clear and concise. However, I'd recommend paraphrasing some of the quotes, and/or trimming down some quotations.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	You have some good info and commentary from secondary sources in the Description sect. Strongly suggest moving this out into a new sect, directly below, Reception, or Analysis, or Commentary as title. Then, expand that sect a tad bit more with sources you mention that covered the event, that you don't actually describe what their coverage actually said.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout. No issues here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Great use of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good reliance upon secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See above about missing sect, Commentary, for population with secondary source assessment. But what about government commentary and reaction? That could maybe even be another sect, if there was any? Police response? Politicians talking about what they felt?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good focus to article, concise probably due to topic nature, but that's okay.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Per above queries about another sect potential for government response, police reactions, and/or politician reactions.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	See above. Passes here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See above, passes here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above, passes here.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

— Cirt (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I removed two quotes by event attendees, which in retrospect are probably not necessary. This leaves three quotes: one by the event organizer, one describing the crowd by a newspaper, and one by a representative NORML. I don't think any of these are too long or problematic, so hopefully this addresses your concern. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The quotes from Oregonian, Willamette Week, and Huffington Post could all be moved to a Reception sect. And yeah, those could all be trimmed and/or paraphrased just at least a tad bit more. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • But one is about the event's origins and another describes the event itself. These are appropriate for background and/or description sections, but reception? I don't think a reception section is necessary. This is about an event, not a work of art or composition, and there were not really reactions to the event by notable individuals or organizations. It was just an historic event that was held and was widely reported by news outlets because of its unique nature. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And I chopped up two of the quotes a bit. I think they read nicely and provide great descriptions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding "reception": I did not come across any reactions by politicians or law enforcement agencies. Portland Police are tolerant of marijuana, which was also technically legal under state law at the time of the event. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

1. The Oregonian described the free event as "loud and energetic", attracting a diverse and "eclectic" crowd of activists, marijuana enthusiasts, and first-time consumers
2. According to Willamette Week, attendees ranged from octogenarians to "tweens with rainbow hair" and the crowd was "generally happy". Furthermore, the newspaper reported, "All and all, the mood was celebratory as befit such an historic occasion."
3. NORML's Kaliko Castille told The Huffington Post he was "happy to see a community able to come together—peacefully—over something positive. It's great to see people from all walks of life out here, handing out joints to each other and getting to know their neighbors.

These certainly could go in a Commentary sect. They are not just reporting but making remarks, specifically "eclectic" is a judgment. The crowd was "generally happy" and "All and all, the mood was celebratory as befit such an historic occasion." -- these are also forms of Commentary. — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The event was covered by cannabis publications,[9][11] local and national media outlets,[3][12][13] and the HBO documentary television series Vice. -- well, with so many different cites -- what did they say about the event? That could go in Commentary sect. — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I can address content separately, but does the current layout and flow of the article satisfy you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MUCH better! Now just need a pinch more quote trimming, a dash more paraphrasing, and a pint or so of expansion of that new sect, and it'll be superb. — Cirt (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure what changes to make at this point. Do you have more specific requests? I feel the NORML quote is appropriate and I don't really know what other content to add to this section. News outlets reported what happened but I don't really know what other 'commentary' belongs here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The event was covered by cannabis publications,[9][11] local and national media outlets,[3][12][13] and the HBO documentary television series Vice. - which ones? What did they say? — Cirt (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • They said what happened at the event. Those details are included in the article's prose. Are you willing to take a look at a couple of the sources to see if information is missing from the article? I feel like I extracted what details I could. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That is a great idea! I'll see if I can't find anything else that could prove helpful. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of this might not go in Reception type info, but useful. You can paraphrase some, but just placing quotes here, as examples of good material:

1. From source 9: "Freedom is happening," he chanted through a bullhorn as he walked across the bridge. "Beautiful."
2. From ref 9: A few patrol cars cruised by without stopping. Police earlier discouraged residents from calling 911 to report instances of public consumption, which they said failed to constitute an emergency.
3. From ref 3: It was a smoke-out with a message: Legalization is so much more than being able to smoke a joint in your home without being a criminal. It's a health care issue; it's a tax revenue issue; it saves states millions in the court system; and it ends the hidden costs of prosecution, which emerge when someone can't get a job because there's a possession charge on their record. = very very good Reception type info, from The Huffington Post.
4. Ref 12 - explains the motivation behind the whole event came from a legal snafu: The odd situation—weed is legal, but there’s nowhere to buy it—has caused marijuana proponents and entrepreneurs to take the very welcomed step of simply giving samples away.
5. Ref 13 - great analysis by The Washington Post about freedom: the “Burnside Burn” was a chance for pot enthusiasts to celebrate their new freedom together.
6. Useful info from Ref 6: The occasional police cruiser rolled by, drawing a smattering of boos from the crowd, but the cops never stopped to issue a fine for smoking in public under the new law.
7. Ref 6: People smoked casually and without the least bit of fear.

Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please refactor posts so they're not interspersed-throughout-mine? It makes it easier for me to go back and review. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Re: #1: I don't think this is worth including. I removed more interesting quotes by other event attendees. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re: #2: Added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re: #3: I feel this commentary is more about legalization in general than the event itself, but I added it to the article per your request. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re: #4. I feel like the article already mentions this. The first paragraph of the Description section says the event was to "[celebrate the] legalization of recreational marijuana use in Oregon and to circumnavigate a temporary limit on recreational sales", and the Belville quote that follows mentions that cannabis exchanges were ok in the forms of gifts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re: #5. Added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re: #6. Added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re: #7. Added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your concerns, so I invite you to give the article a final review and see if it meets your approval. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks much, MUCH better!!! Thanks for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. Passed as GA. — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you for your help. I actually felt bad for taking so long to address all concerns, but I am super busy lately. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (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.