Talk:Oriana Bandiera/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: RegMonkey (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. I am happy to take this article on for review, as part of the GAN backlog drive and after seeing this article on the Women in Green autumn backlog. I will provide section-by-section comments, followed by a broad check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• To start with, I'll note that this article has been tagged as citing several primary sources since December 2023. These should be addressed. You should over the policy on primary sources to make sure you're using them properly, and cut any usage that goes against policy.
• I'm concerned about the use of Bandiera's CV throughout the article. You should find alternative sources to this one, as citing her CV so much could be considered promotional.

Early life and education

• Spotcheck: [1][2] Università Ca' Foscari verifies the date of birth and Barcelona School of Economics verifies the place of birth. Consider moving this citations inline with the specific information they verify, rather than bundling them together at the end of the sentence.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified, but this sentence is copy-pasted from the source. I understand a sentence like this is difficult to rewrite in your own words, but give it a try if you see another way to word it.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• "Palanpur was in many ways more similar to her native Sicily than it was to Milan," This doesn't clarify well enough what Bandiera said. The way it's written here, it seems like she's saying that Palanpur was more similar to Sicily than Palanpur was to Milan, but she actually said that her Sicilian village was more similar to Palanpur than the Sicilian village was to Milan. Consider rewording to make this clearer.
• Spotcheck: [4] The cited source here is a primary source, that being Bandiera's own PhD thesis. This verifies that she studied under "James E. Anderson, Fabio Schianterelli, and Richard Arnott", although this appears to be trivia, as none of them seem to be independently notable enough for even redlinks. But it doesn't verify that she actually received her PhD, as it only says the thesis was a "partial fulfilment" of the PhD criteria. It does verify the subject of the thesis through the abstract. Are there any reliable secondary sources, which verify that she received her PhD, that you can cite instead of citing her thesis?

Academic career

• This first paragraph is cited almost entirely to Bandiera's CV, which makes it read like a CV itself. This does not make for a good article. If there are reliable secondary sources on this, then you should cite those instead. If there isn't reliable secondary sourcing for this information, consider whether it needs to be in the article at all.
• Spotcheck: [5][1] I wasn't able to access the Who's Who article, although you should really put this into proper citation formatting, also you link to the disambiguation page for Who's Who, rather than the article about the specific reference work being cited (Who's Who (UK)). Verified information from CV, but if this is in Who's Who, then why are we citing her CV?
• Spotcheck: [6][7] Verified.
• "She currently holds the Sir Anthony Atkinson Chair in Economics at LSE" The use of "currently" is ambiguous time that is liable to change. When did she first take this position? It would be more helpful to say "Since [X year], she has held the Sir Anthony Atkinson Chair [...]".
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5][9] Unable to verify Who's Who, verified through the Econometric Society.
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.

Research

• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.

Management in the public sector

• Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
• Why is the paper itself being cited alongside the New York Times article covering it? Considering the paper is already listed in the selected publications section, I don't think you need to cite it here.
• Spotcheck: [18][19] Failed verification. None of this information appears to be in the Devex citation, so I'm not sure where it's coming from other than the cited primary source.

Management in the private sector

• Spotcheck: [20][21] Verified. Again, if you have a secondary source verifying this information, and the primary source is already listed in the selected publications section, I don't think you need to cite it here.
• No need to cite the Zambia study when it's in the selected publications, and the Financial Times already covers this as a secondary source.
• "Finally," Finally? Is this her last work? Why is it final?
• Spotcheck: [23][24] Verified. Although again, you have a secondary source in The Economist verifying this information, so the primary source doesn't need to be cited as well if it's in the selected publications section.

Gender pay gap

• Spotcheck: [25][26] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [27][28] Verified. Although the primary source published by the Hub for Equal Representation in the economy should really be in the selected publications section, it would be better listed there than in a citation here.
• Spotcheck: [27] Verified.

Recognition

• Why is the EEA logo included here? It's only one of several organisations mentioned in this section.
• I'm usually wary about including Google Scholar results, but it's attributed here, so I think it's inclusion is fine.
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [31] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [32] Verified.
• You shouldn't be citing a tweet, especially when this information is already covered by a better source.
• Spotcheck: [34] Not seeing anything here about them being "frequent" co-authors, only that they received the prize together.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• "In 2016, she was elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society" This is duplicate information, also included in the "Academic career" section. One of these instances should be cut.
• Spotcheck: [35] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• Can't verify Who's Who, although I will note this is a duplicate citation and should be merged with the other citation to Who's Who.

Personal life

• Again, if there's a better source you can cite than a tweet, cite that instead. I don't think citing tweets is good practice at GA level.
• Is there any more that could be added to this section, other than details about her family?

Selected publications

• I notice that none of her work on the gender pay gap appears to be listed in this section, is there a reason for this? These papers are ones your readers may like to know about.
• You should sort the entries by chronological order, so the December 2014 article should go before the ones from 2020.

Lead section

• This lead is very short and not particularly informative. It currently reads like little more than a list of positions she holds, but talks very little about her actual research, which is the main thing I'd want to know from a lead section about an academic. Consider giving it a rewrite and a slight expansion, this would go a long way for introducing us to Bandiera.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All good on the prose front. I have a couple issues with clarity and word choice in some areas, but it's nothing major and easily fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead section should be slightly longer and more informative. Otherwise, all good on the MOS front.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Found one citation that isn't properly formatted, this should be fixed.

   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):

   This is one of the main issues. There are a lot of primary sources peppered throughout the article. In some cases they're used properly, in others they aren't, and in a few they're redundant with reliable secondary sources. In particular, the use of Bandiera's CV is very problematic.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No examples of original research found, almost all information is verified in the cited sources, although I think there's one case where the wrong source was cited.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig doesn't flag anything major.[1] I noticed a couple cases of copy-pasting or close paraphrasing, but they're minor cases where I'm not sure how they could feasibly be rewritten without losing relevant information.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Bandiera's career appears to be covered in full and her research areas are very adequately summarised.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused, never once veering away from its subject.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I don't think the academic career section, in its current state, can be considered neutral. It reads a lot like a CV, because it's largely citing a CV, and as such brings with it an almost promotional tone.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reversions in its history, no major changes from day-to-day.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Photographs are freely licensed by the authors, but I am highly suspicious of the author license for the EEA logo. I'm not sure the uploader is actually the copyright holder of that logo.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Photographs are relevant and suitably captioned, although could do with alt text. I don't think the EEA logo is relevant, it just gives undue weight to the EEA in a section where they're only one in several organisations mentioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   While I think this article is all good on prose and broadness, it has big problems with reliability and neutrality, largely due to its "Academic career" section. Major work needs to be done to overhaul that section, in order to have it read less like a CV. The lead also needs work, as I don't think the various positions Bandiera holds are nearly as important to the reader as the subjects and details of her research work. I don't think this article meets the GA criteria right now, but I think it could get there with some work, so I am putting this review on hold for now. Feel free to ping me when you think you've addressed my comments, or if you have any questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst given a lack of response or activity from the nominator, this should probably be failed unless another willing nominator can be found, but thank you for the thorough review. No doubt it will eventually be used to improve the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right, unfortunately. I'll close the review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2024 (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.