Talk:A Rape on Campus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

: 1a Generally good. In the lede: "now-retracted" is redundant- "retracted" is all needed in this context. "crush" feels slangish (and, well, high school-ish) as opposed to "romantic interest in". Story section includes improper contraction "wasn't". 2nd sentence of 3rd para of Initial response section is too long. Drew Existence section includes typo "attacker&nbsp" Inconsistencies in article's use of "AM" and "a.m." 1b   Needs organizational adjustment. Line is blurred between "Consequences" and "Legal and social consequences of story", which are presented as separate sections, and then between the latter and "Lawsuits" further down.   2a  Thoroughly referenced 2b  WP:RS employed 2c. Cindy is not mentioned in ref for statement "no effort was made by Rolling Stone to interview her". Refs 20 and 29 are redundant. Ref 65 is dead. Ref 77 needs archive 2d. Copyright and close paraphrasing concerns:


 * "that led to the publication of"
 * Still appears in lede. Can be "culminating in the article being published" Ribbet32 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "on the night of the alleged rape,"
 * "she asked Erdely to be taken out of the article"
 * "she was forced to perform oral sex on five men"
 * "filed a defamation suit against"
 * "hit in the face by a bottle"
 * Still appears in Police investigation section. Can be "struck to the face with a bottle"
 * "date with a member of the fraternity"
 * Still appears in Story. Could be "romantic outing with a Phi Kappa Psi member"
 * I think "romantic outing" is wordy and sounds pompous. If the sentence is too close to the source, switch around the phrases, add some different transitions. Remember that simply inserting a synonym into a sentence still gives a close paraphrase. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "about sexual assaults at an elite university"
 * was wrong with this edit "Elect" can mean "one chosen or set apart" (can also be "prestigious") and assaults are violent.
 * Two problems: first, changing to a word that is less standard does not help readers. "Elite" is what the source says, so we need that exact meaning (note we have elite as an article). "Prestigious" might work. But second, simply taking an original-source sentence and using a thesaurus on a word or two does not actually solve the close-paraphrase (see Close paraphrasing). However, WP:LIMITED does say we can use close-paraphrase in certain circumstances. So we can use a synonym but cannot change the meaning of a "simple statement of fact" or to avoid altering "technical terms". DMacks (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "suspended all fraternity and sorority activities until"
 * Still appears in Consequences. Can be "postponed" or "cancelled all events related to its fraternities and sororities"

 :  3a. thorough coverage 3b. Not a lot off topic  . 4. Lede states motivation was just a crush, but article and sources indicate belief delusions and PTSD was a factor. Under "Questions emerge," "she appeared to offer evasive responses " is editorializing. ABC section states Jackie was fine after, but Washington Post states 'Jackie seemed “really upset, really shaken up”' New York states '[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/everything-we-know-uva-rape-case.html Rachel Soltis, Jackie’s former roommate, says she noticed emotional and physical changes in her during the fall of 2012. “She was withdrawn, depressed and couldn’t wake up in the mornings,” says Soltis, adding that she’s convinced Jackie was sexually assaulted.]' Xenu's para in the pop culture para is best deleted. Has nothing to do with pop culture or Rolling Stone.

5. No horrific edit wars  6. Image is free. No FU image of article, like The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power? We also have free images of Teresa Sullivan
 * Thank you for your prompt efforts to address the issues.
 * 1a. in lede: "would say" would be more concise as "said". "Crush" still appears in the Key discrepancies and Notes sections. Categories should be in alphabetical order. "AM" still appears in "Story" while the (IMO more preferable) "a.m." still appears in Key discrepancies.
 * 2c. What happened to ref 26?
 * 6. Note a screenshot of the article is available at Ribbet32 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "organisations" used in Initial response section- not the spelling per MOS:STRONGNAT. Under "Key discrepancies- Washington", this seems garbled to me: "no pledges resident in the house" Under "Sexual assault skepticism", "US college campuses" should be "U.S. college campuses" per WP:NOTUSA. Also, it seems "Investigations" would be a better fit between Accuser scrutinized and Consequences.
 * Any chance we can deal with the 2c issues? Refs 4 and 29 still cite the same article, which appears to be the broken ref 26. There's no ref at the end of the 3rd para of Consequenes, though one exists Ribbet32 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a lot of work in the past 24 hours. Remaining points before we wrap this up; 1. The missing citation on Consequences; 2. The neutrality point on the ABC section (I don't feel comfortable with that without a little balance); 3. What do you think about having the picture of the article? I think it communicates something. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I took care of everything. Let me know if any more changes needed to be made. Thanks for your help!
 * Thank you. This is a really difficult subject, so it's good to see a thorough and mature take on it. Congratulations to all contributors. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ribbet32. I want to nominate this article to become a featured article, and the instruction page for that says that I should seek out a mentor to help me promote it to featured article status. Would you be so kind as to be my mentor in this endeavor?