Jump to content

Talk:Better Out Than In

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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:Better Out Than In/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs) 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking on this review. Be aware that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about graffiti or Banksy in the least (although a sampling of his work looks very interesting), so I may have a few questions about those two throughout my review. I will be doing my overall review and then a (hopefully short) prose review. I expect to have my first read-through and review finished in a few hours. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: As this GA nomination has been requested since mid-November 2013, I am more than happy to allow as much time as possible for any changes or questions this review requires to be completed. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Woot! Thanks for taking it up ТимофейЛееСуда :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Minor issues, see below prose review.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead is awfully short and does not provide a complete stand-alone overview of the article per MOS:LEAD
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Only 1-2 major editors, stable history.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    My only image related concern is that IMHO only two images are in logical places (Ronald McDonald & Ghetto 4 Life). The other images should (IMHO) be near the text that discusses them. Also the image of the 24th installment is in an appropriate place, but that artwork is not discussed in the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Almost there. See Prose review below. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Prose review

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • Per MOS:LEAD the lead should be a standalone overview of the entire article. Currently the lead is only two sentences and only covers the background section and touches on the works section. Minimally the lead should coverage of more of the works section, the defacement section and the response section.
    Working on it! :) — MusikAnimal talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a stab at improving the lead. Let me know if you think it needs some tweaking. — MusikAnimal talk 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Works

[edit]
  • In the first paragraph, be sure that all of the punctuation is inside of the quotations (ie before the quotation marks. There are currently three places in that paragraph that have issues.
    I agree that it seems odd to have punctuation outside the quotations, however MOS:LQ states it should match that of the quote exactly. Seems trivial to me... but if you think they should still go in the quotes that's no problem! :) — MusikAnimal talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph you state On 6 October... Throughout the rest of the article you switch back and forth between D MMMM YYYY and MMMM D YYYY. You might use MMMM D YYYY since that is the US standard and the article is about US work. I personally do not care for this article and either will pass as long as the entire article is standard in its use per MOS:DATE.
  • In retrospect the only time that you do not use the same format is in the first sentence of the background section, so maybe just change that one. Your choice.
  • The subject of the article takes place in the US however the artist is English, so format could probably go either way. In light of wording 9/11 as "September 11" I went with the US convention. — MusikAnimal talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph, last sentence, ...Banksy posted a video featuring the Walt Disney character Dumbo being shot down Syrian rebels, the meaning behind which puzzled many. I believe that you are missing the word "by" between "shot down" and Syrian rebels."
    Yep! Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in MOS:IMAGES that says that photos have to be right next to the content that discusses them, and so I will not fail this nomination because of my opinion. I do want to make you aware that as a reader without familiarity with the subject, it is odd as encyclopedias always have the image with the relevant content.
    I will try to move them around to have more sensible locations. I went off of MOS:IMAGELOCATION which notes multiple images can be "staggered right-and-left". It's more for presentation purposes so things don't look cluttered... so it's hard to decide what looks good yet also correctly flows with the text. — MusikAnimal talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

This concludes my first read-through review. If you will address these points (or at least answer my questions), I will do a final read-through & review (if necessary) and then I will be more than happy to pass this article to GA status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article an few more times and everything looks great. This is a very polished article and I am happy to promote this to GA status! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 15 April 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) — Calidum ¤ 03:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better Out Than In → Better Out than In – The title uses "than" as a preposition, but most (if not all) sources uppercase it. WP:COMMONNAMES is not a "common style" policy. Shall I cite MOS:CT, which does not require prepositions to be lowercased but requires them consisting of at least five letters to be uppercased? WP:NCCAPS tells us to rely on manuals if there is no consensus. I have the eighth edition of A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Diisertations: Chicago Style for Students & Researchers (some type of Chicago Manual of Style) saying to lowercase prepositions (unless used as adverbs or adjectives). Other manuals may say that as well. There are no clauses within the title. Maybe someone might see it as double entendre, but I don't. George Ho (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Grammatically, "Than" should be lowercased, but I'm not sure how much that applies to a proper noun, as in the title of the work. I think if sources capitalize it (including Banksy himself), than we should too, just as WP:COMMONNAME suggests. However this is super trivial, and people are going to have no less of a hard time finding this article with the lowercased variation, nor will it change the meaning. One seems just as good as the other, except that the capitalized version is widely supported by available sources — MusikAnimal talk 06:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this disturbs my sense of style. In this case we should eschew the guidelines unless there is consensus that a lower case "than" is better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose – George, please treat MOS:CT with MOS:TM in mind, and choose from among styles that are actually in use. If you can't show sources that do it as you suggest, it's a non-starter. Remember what happened with Star Trek Into Darkness? Even though a few lowercased into, it was too few for most editors to accept as an OK variant. This one is worse, if your opening line is true where you say "most (if not all) sources uppercase it". Please don't bring some requests unless you can show that at least some sources would use case in the way MOS:CT suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Potential GA reassessment

[edit]

@Rich Farmbrough: Regarding [1]: A while back a new user added a bunch of unsourced content to complete the works of this 30-day show, much of it very brief with insignificant detail. I asked them to work on verifiability but got no response. I sort of felt bad and didn't want to outright remove it. I will try to brush this up, but is there anything else you were concerned about? I worked very hard to get this to GA and want to keep it that way :) — MusikAnimal talk 06:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it can be brought back to GA quality, but there were un-wiki things like "Indicative of people's greed there were soon men charging the people to view and take pictures of the artwork." and general lack of NPOV, as well as some dubious phrasing. Added to the weaker sourcing you mention, I found myself wondering if certain parts of the article were vandalism - as far as I could ascertain, they are not.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I just stumbled upon this article and added a bunch of "citation needed" tags. This article does not currently meet Good article standards, I'm afraid... ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: I see you are on vacation currently, but I'm curious if you plan to improve this article to meet GA standards. If not, I am going to submit a request for a community review as a step towards demotion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Yes I can address these issues when I return home next week. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 02:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources and removed all other unsourced content. It was all inserted by the same editor, who I reached out to directly about adding references and they never acted upon it. Many of those pieces weren't particularly notable in this series anyway, so I'm quite content putting the article closer to where it used to be, as unfortunately I don't have the time to do all the additional research to find sources. Let me know if you think anything else is below par. Best — MusikAnimal talk 19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Better Out Than In. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Better Out Than In. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Better Out Than In. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

I've redirected the following pages to this article:

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Better_Out_Than_In&oldid=1206275463"