Talk:Marnie (dog)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Lead: wording. See discussion below.	Don't know
(b) (MoS)	Appearances and merchandise: short section should be merged into previous. See discussion below. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose...Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".	Don't know

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	OK.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	OK.	Pass
(c) (original research)	OK.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Major aspects of Marnie's story are missing from the short, current article, particularly important details noted in at least two sources, Billboard[1] (I can send you a copy if you like; Griffith, Carson. "Marnie the Dog's music festival fame: a rescued 12-year-old Shih Tzu finds a second life in the arms of celebrities and catapults to Instagram fame." Billboard 16 Aug. 2014: 30.) and People.[2] These details are important to framing the narrative and getting the article right. There are a few, but I'll briefly note them here: 1) It is important to note that Shirley Braha is a TV producer because Braha was working on the show Weird Vibes for MTV at the 2013 South by Southwest conference. This led to a "tour" of sorts on the festival circuit allowing Marnie to interact with celebrities and increase her exposure. And that is the sole reason she became popular, an important point this article neglects to mention. This is the difference between asserting popularity and describing it. 2) her big break was getting photographed with Miley Cyrus at a party. This article neglects to mention that fact. 3) her visibility increased by promoting "Adopt A Senior Pet Month" and "American Express's Small Business Saturday", 4) random encounters on the streets of New York City have led to encounters with other celebrities.	Fail
(b) (focused)	OK.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
OK.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Currently stable; however, it went through an AfD and a peer review a month ago.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Possible case of unintentional flickr washing (license laundering). The image in question was originally posted to Marnie's Instagram and tumblr account.[3][4] Such images are automatically non-free per Instagram. Two days later, it was posted to Adam Rifkin's website "pandawhale.com"[5] by Adam himself, and then to his flickr site with a free license.[6] There is no indication that Adam Rifkin received permisison to relicense the image.	Don't know
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Undetermined

Result

Result

Notes

Fail

On hold to address issues listed above and below. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Well, this has been on hold for three weeks now and I've seen no response from the nominator. In at least two separate instances I've contacted the nominator on their talk page and offered my help with the needed changes. There has been no response to my repeated requests, and throughout this time, the nominator has been active on Wikipedia. I'm therefore failing this article. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Prose style

• Remove "as a result" whenever you see it as it is unnecessary. It's used three times in this article, for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Recent additions to the lead continue to assert and "beg" notability rather than describe it. For example, the lead currently says:
  • 1. "Photos of Marnie have been popular on Instagram and Twitter"
  • 2. "videos of Marnie on Vine, which have also garnered significant attention"
  • 3. " Marnie's popularity originated from her photos on Instagram"
  • 4. "which Braha added to since 2014, and has since became popular."
  • 5. "Marnie is especially famous for her permanent head tilt to the left"
• This is really unnecessary and reads like a response to the AfD. Assert and/or describe notability or popularity once. Five times in the lead section is simply ridiculous. Keep in mind, this is already in addition to you describing her notability on Instagram and Twitter, which means you've actually said she's popular seven times in the lead section. Try to write from an encyclopedic point of view, as if you had to describe Marnie to people in the future. There's no need to say she's popular seven times when you can describe it without using those words. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Marnie's popularity originated from her photos on Instagram, under the handle @marniethedog, which Braha added to since 2014, and has since became popular.
  • "Which Braha added to since 2014" reads quite strange. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• Known parameter says "they have garnered significant attention"; that's not needed as that is the entire reason for the parameter and is basically begging the question. Instead of saying "Pictures of Marnie posted by Braha on various social networking services", just say "Internet celebrity". I think that covers it. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• rescue dog adopted
  • Try to avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE by linking elsewhere. In other words, you don't need to link rescue dog and pet adoption in the same place, they can be linked separately in the article or paragraph. Viriditas (talk)
    •  Fixed Esquivalience ^t 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• and Marnie's Twitter account has received over 75,000 followers
  • Please remove "and". Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Fixed Esquivalience ^t 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't mention the distinctive feature of Marnie's head tilt. The lead is a good place for this important information. Remember to summarize the most important points here. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing this. However, the peer review initially raised this problem several months ago. I will need to proceed carefully here to make sure previous concerns have been addressed.[7]. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Recent edits have attempted to expand the lead section per the above, however this has somewhat confused things. First I read she's a dog adopted by Braha and how she has become an Internet celebrity. Then, I'm surprised by the second paragraph which tells me she was suddenly moved to an animal shelter and then adopted. I realize you are trying to summarize the background, but it's disjointed without words leading me into the past. There are several ways to solve this. An easy way would be to replace "In August 2012" and move the first two sentences around in the second paragraph. Something indicating the chronology like, "Braha initially adopted Marnie on Petfinder after she was found by animal control living on the streets of Connecticut". Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Appearances and merchandise

• Braha also makes paid visits to events, and sells merchandise featuring Marnie for profit and initially to repay Braha's debt.
  • This reads rather clumsily. "Featuring Marnie for profit and initially to repay Braha's debt" is torturous to read. Short sections are generally discouraged, so I would delete the section heading and merge this into the "popularity" section which should be renamed to "Internet celebrity" or something else. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Fixed removed the "profit" section entirely, and merged section. Esquivalience ^t 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links

• Per WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, only Marnie's official blog should be linked here. Her Instagram and Twitter feed is linked from the blog. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)