Talk:Lobster (magazine)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Lobster-issue2-1983.jpg = can this please be moved to Wikimedia Commons?
2. File:Robin-ramsay-lobster.jpg = this file should be moved to Wikimedia Commons.
3. File:Lobster-magazine-logo.svg = please move this file to Wikimedia Commons, as well.
4. File:Lord Harold Wilson Allan Warren.jpg
5. File:Margaret Thatcher (Retouched).JPG
6. File:BigBenHDR.jpg = any idea on the date on this picture?
7. File:Peter dale scott.png = can this file pleased be categorized on Wikimedia Commons properly?

Image notes above, the rest are okay.

Thanks for that, images 1-3 and 7 have now been copied to Commons. #7 has been categorised on Commons. Unfortunately I can find no date for #6. --Iantresman (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that #1 has been removed from Commons, for reasons I don't understand, as it is public domain. There's also an issue with #2, and I am in the process of getting evidence that the copyright holder has provided permission. --Iantresman (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I made some fixes over at Commons. You mistakenly uploaded an image there with a "fair use rationale" template here from Wikipedia, that's probably what triggered the incorrect but good faith deletion over there. — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the images are now back over to Commons, and the photo of the editor now has its copright and permissions affirmed. --Iantresman (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Next, on to stability review. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Stability check

1. No outstanding issues, upon inspection of article edit history.
2. Don't see any ongoing conflicts, upon inspection of article talk page.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Writing style is okay, make sure to have cites at ends of all quotes, even blockquotes.
2. A bit too much use of blockquotes and quotes, perhaps please try to paraphrase some of them.
3. Suggest consulting WP:GOCE for copyediting help, won't get here in time for this review, but putting a request in for copyediting in the queue is a good thing in general. :)
4. Recommend going for a Peer Review for additional input and review after the end of the GA Review process, regardless of outcome.

2. Factually accurate?:

1. Some cites appear to be inadequate to satisfy WP:V policy.
2. A few cites seem to need more to meet WP:V, and don't have enough info for adequate satisfactory verification.
3. Hopefully, this can be easily remedied by adding page numbers, volume numbers, author names, and other fields as helped by using WP:CIT templates.
4. Some examples of cites that need more info are below:
   • Lobster 22, 1991
   • Fortean Times, April 2001
   • Green Anarchist, Summer 2001
   • Direct Action magazine, Summer 2001

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. Reception is alright ... but what about any analysis from Academic sources?
2. Controversy section = needs more from multiple other different secondary sources, so as not to present a single source viewpoint. For example, first sub-subsection only uses one big ole blockquote from The Guardian, please trim that and or paraphrase it.
3. House of Commons criticism - any other coverage of this info from different secondary sources?

4. Neutral point of view?: See above suggestions about Controversy section and Reception section.

5. Article stability? Stability pass, see above.

6. Images?: Images pass, see above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I've converted the two block quotes in prose, which seems to tick a few boxes. I'm trying to find details of some of the less informative references you mentioned, and hope to go through the article again over the next couple of days. Thanks again. --Iantresman (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the responsiveness. Keep me posted, here. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have one of the "short" citations expanded, with details of the others all in the post to me. I won't make the 48 hour time review, but will probably make the weekend. --Iantresman (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep me posted when you feel it's ready for another re-check. — Cirt (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There were edits on December 21 and 27. It's been two weeks since the last post; is this making good enough progress? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question, I've posted to the user's talk page for Iantresman (talk · contribs), cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry for delay, I was waiting for details of a citation. I think we're ready for the next review. Here's a summary of changes:

• Images: all sorted
• 1. Well written: (1) Added missing cites at ends of all quotes and blockquotes (2) Some blockquotes removed and incorporated inline.[1] (3)&(4) Acknowledged
• 2. Factually accurate? (1-4) Improved all cites mentioned
• 3. Broad in coverage? (1) While Lobster is mentioned in some academic references, I could find no reviews. But I did find additional contributions and sources from (a) Chris Atton [2] (b) Curator of the of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection, Hayden B. Peake [3] (2) Controversy quote rephrased inline [4](3) I couldn't find any more House of Commons sources, but we have (a) a secondary source (b) a very good primary source (Hansard), and I think they are used appropriately (4-6) Acknowledged.

In total, there are over 30 improvements throughout.[5] --Iantresman (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review passed

GA Review passed. Many thanks for the responsiveness to the above suggested changes. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And thank you too, I know that a lot of work goes into reading through an article, then providing constructive criticism, and then keeping an eye on the changes. But got there in the end. Thanks again, and to everyone one else who contriuted. --Iantresman (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)