| Revision as of 19:32, 4 December 2013 editHawkeye7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors124,094 edits →GA Review← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:49, 3 March 2014 edit undoHawkeye7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors124,094 edits Moved from GA review to talk page | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that the article in its current form meets the GA criteria for verifiability. Overall, the article is well-written and a pleasure to read, but the main core of the article is referenced to "questionable sources" - i.e. sources closely connected with the subject that have been "published" without any apparent fact-checking or editorial oversight. The entire CIC section (except the first sentence) is referenced to such a source, and two other such sources are used a total of 7 times. This includes not just minor biographical details, but whole sections of his career, including achievements and figures etc. Some of this could be fixed using the two NYT articles, but you may still disagree with my assessment. If that is the case, would you like me to request a second opinion on this review? ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) | I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that the article in its current form meets the GA criteria for verifiability. Overall, the article is well-written and a pleasure to read, but the main core of the article is referenced to "questionable sources" - i.e. sources closely connected with the subject that have been "published" without any apparent fact-checking or editorial oversight. The entire CIC section (except the first sentence) is referenced to such a source, and two other such sources are used a total of 7 times. This includes not just minor biographical details, but whole sections of his career, including achievements and figures etc. Some of this could be fixed using the two NYT articles, but you may still disagree with my assessment. If that is the case, would you like me to request a second opinion on this review? ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :No, I think that I need to withdraw the article and redo the sourcing. ] (]) 19:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) | :No, I think that I need to withdraw the article and redo the sourcing. ] (]) 19:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::OK, I'll close this as unsuccessful for now. Keep up the good work with these Manhattan Project articles. ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ;Text | ;Text | ||
Latest revision as of 19:49, 3 March 2014
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 08:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I'll take this one. Full review to follow in due course. Moswento 08:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sources
Before I continue with this review, I have a major concern with the sources for this article. Currently, the majority of the article seems to be referenced to questionable sources. However, I may have misunderstood, and the prose is very good, so I'm leaving this open for you to respond.
- Ancestry.com - Aren't these just user-generated family trees?
- Pretty much, but it is only used for his parents' names. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- WW2enlistment.org - I realise you only use this for an enlistment date, but this appears to be a self-confessed potentially unreliable source. "We have reason to believe there is some information on the enlistee that might contain inaccuracies or data quality issues."
- Yes, it is only used for his enlistment date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Short Biograpical Sketch" - this is currently used to source the majority of the article. My concern is two-fold. 1) As a biographical statement written by Uanna himself, relying so heavily on it raises questions of reliability. 2) How do we know it's even authentic?
- Its authenticity is vouched for by the MPHRA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- My main concern is still not the fact that it's used, but its frequency. See new comment below. Moswento 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Its authenticity is vouched for by the MPHRA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Assassination as Non-Proliferation" - I cannot see a blog comment meeting WP:RS
- History News Network - as above
- HNN is a reliable source. But what we are actually sourcing is his son's comments, which supports what the article says avout his son. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The comments are not just used to support statements about his son, but about his career. Moswento 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- HNN is a reliable source. But what we are actually sourcing is his son's comments, which supports what the article says avout his son. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that the article in its current form meets the GA criteria for verifiability. Overall, the article is well-written and a pleasure to read, but the main core of the article is referenced to "questionable sources" - i.e. sources closely connected with the subject that have been "published" without any apparent fact-checking or editorial oversight. The entire CIC section (except the first sentence) is referenced to such a source, and two other such sources are used a total of 7 times. This includes not just minor biographical details, but whole sections of his career, including achievements and figures etc. Some of this could be fixed using the two NYT articles, but you may still disagree with my assessment. If that is the case, would you like me to request a second opinion on this review? Moswento 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I think that I need to withdraw the article and redo the sourcing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'll close this as unsuccessful for now. Keep up the good work with these Manhattan Project articles. Moswento 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Text
Some of the text issues I spotted before the source issues temporarily halted my review:
- Lead: "I Service Command" - links to an article that doesn't seem to mention "I Service Command"
- Nope. That's the correct article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lead: "After the he" - Is there a missing word here?
- Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Early life: "he attended Medford High School." - this doesn't follow from the rest of the sentence
- Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Early life: "Massachusetts where" - "Massachusetts, where"
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- CIC: "After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in and" - missing word between "in" and "and"?
- Removed "and" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)