Talk:Aubrey Gibson/GA1

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

Hello, I'll be conducting this article's GA review. Here is how it stands against the criteria:


 * 1) Well-written: There are quite a few issues with the prose, and some violations of MOS, detailed below.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Seems okay.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: More information would be ideal.
 * 4) Neutral: Yes.
 * 5) Stable: Yes.
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes, although the book cover image needs to be resized in order to satisfy non-free image policy.

Although created a year and a half ago, this article seems fairly new. Only one article links to it, making it virtually an orphan; perhaps look into related articles and add a link where appropriate. This will help publicity, so to speak, for the subject matter. Some specific concerns:

MOS
 * The lead section must follow WP:LEAD in that it should be a summary of the entire article. One or two paragraphs (depending on how much expansion occurs) would be ideal. Done (i think)
 * Since we know his birth/death dates, include them in the first sentence per WP:MOSBIO. Done
 * If a word is not a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized in the section headings. "Background and Business Career" should be "Background and business career", for example. Done
 * Wikipedia uses double quotes ("...") for quotations, not single quotes ('...') Done

Prose (note: there's quite a bit more, so this is only a few representative examples.) Done (i hope!)
 * Some sentences seem overly long and/or confusing. For example: Gibson briefly studied art at the National Gallery of Victoria drawing school, before he concluded that art was not his vocation, saying of that time 'with little resistance I allowed myself to be guided into commercial fields "before he concluded that art was not his vocation" seems unprofessional and overly wordy.  "until he decided against art as a vocation" would be better, and then perhaps start a new sentence with the quote.  Done' There are a few of these throughout the article.
 * The 1930s and 1940s saw Gibson marry twice... Decades cannot see. "Gibson married twice, first in (year) and then again in (year)" or something to that effect, would be better. Done
 * He was also active in what is now the army reserve, from at least his university days, and served in the middle east during World War II with the Second Australian Imperial Force. Chronologically speaking, this should be mentioned earlier. Tricky. His business and military careers are chronologically parallel. Have made that clearer. More information would also be very helpful, especially about his war career, if it's available. Have added all I have been able to locate.
 * His career as an artist may have been fleeting, however Gibson's career as a patron and lover of art was lifelong. Wording here is off. "Although his career as an artist may have been fleeting, Gibson's career..." etc. Done
 * The 1950s and 1960s saw Gibson make a major contribution... see above. "In the 1950s and 1960s, Gibson made a major contribution..." Done
 * In Australia, Gibson was an active supported of the arts, beyond merely collecting. Supporter? This sentence is also somewhat bothersome.  Could it perhaps be reworded as "Gibson was an active supporter of the arts in Australia"?  I would remove the last part, as it's redundant. Done

Content
 * Why is Gibson's personal life smooshed together with his professional one? In one paragraph we go from his marriages to his business career.  I suggest making an entirely new section, and fleshing out both where needed. Separation done. Fleshing out done
 * He was a founding director of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, as well as its Victorian chairman, president, and chairman of the board at different stages from 1954 to 1972. Gibson was variously trustee, treasurer and deputy chairman of the National Gallery of Victoria in the period 1956 to 1964. This is all well and good, but I have no idea what these two places are. Although they have their own articles, a little context would be good.  What was/is their purpose?  AETT Done. NGV Done
 * Also, what did Gibson do in these roles? Was he responsible for any big changes or updates?  Is it known how much he donated, or helped collect? Done to extent available from published sources
 * I have no sense of this man's accomplishments or his legacy. Is anything named for him?  From a quick Google search I found that they have a collection of his at The National Library of Australia.  Anything else?  Are there specific, famous paintings or works that he collected/donated?  Done, as far as i have been able to ascertain.
 * Is The Rosebowl an autobiography? Are there any more personal anecdotes, quotes, etc? Done

References
 * The sentence beginning "Commissions may have been an interest for Gibson..." needs a citation. Fixed
 * There's no need to repeat the full reference information in each citation, or even in any citation, since it's already listed under "Primary/Secondary sources". Instead, use shorthand: "Gibson (1952), p. 3" for example.
 * Format references correctly and consistently; pick a style from WP:CITE. I prefer MLA, but an example of APA can easily be followed from WP:CITE/ES.

Although I believe there's quite a lot of work that needs doing, I'm willing to place this article on hold for a week-or-so. Please take this time to look over the above issues and work on improving the article. If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. María ( habla con migo ) 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for excellent feedback. Am flagging progress against the above items as I get to them. I'm kind of stretched in Real Life, so not sure how quickly I'll get through this. If it takes too long and we have to go to a fail and a renom in a little while, that's OK with me. Hope you'll check back in a few more days. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's still quite a ways to go, but we'll see if another week-or-so helps. I'm not wed to any specific timeline as long as you continue to keep me abreast of your progress. :)  If you have any questions, let me know.  I'll take another look at the article once you've come to a stopping point. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I may be done here. The reference system is not an author date, and i have made some changes for consistency to reflect that. The style I think is internally consistent, but if you believe any details are omitted, please advise. To foreshadow one possible query - there is no identifiable publisher or ISBN on the exhibition catalogue. My searches have not identified any further published sources that make reference to Mr Gibson other than those already cited. Is there anything else you think needs to be done? (I don't have the software to do the image reduction - not that I would know how to use it!) Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far, but I'm not sure it's quite ready yet. I'm not sure what you mean by "the reference system is not an author date"? Although the style is now consistent, it's also not correct. :) You can follow any academic style (APA and MLA are the most popular), but it really should be changed to reflect common academic standards.  "Aubrey H. L. Gibson, The Rosebowl, F.W. Cheshire, Melbourne, 1952" under APA, for example, would be "Gibson, Aubrey H. L. 1952. The Rosebowl. Melbourne: F.W. Cheshire".  Also, I don't think I adequately explained my shorthand ref suggestion: rather than repeating the complete bibliographic catalog for each reference, refer to each work in each citation with a truncated explanation -- "Gibson (1952), p. 3" was the example I used before. See Robert Sterling Yard for a more visual explanation of how the sources and citations are separated.

I'll go through later and make additional prose corrections and suggestions. María ( habla con migo ) 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back. I think I was trying to say two things about the referencing. First, I was not going to use an author-date type referencing system, and so I removed the lists of "primary source" / "secondary sources" to ensure this was unambiguous. Second, I was concentrating on making the referencing system internally consistent, per WP:CITE: "There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." (emphasis added) For my part, I don't favour referencing systems such as that used in Robert Sterling Yard, as have I always thought a 'one-stop' system (where the full referencing details are found in one location) to be preferable to a system that uses both notes and a referencing list. As long as their optional on WP, I'd rather run with a system such as I've used here. (Of course I'd respect the guideline for working with the already-existing system on an article). I am curious about the WP endorsement of APA and MLA. In hardcopy pubs, neither are generally used in conjunction with a footnote referencing system: APA uses Harvard referencing, while MLA also uses a parenthetical referencing system. Given that WP generally runs on footnotes, they're an odd choice - and they result in what I referred to as an awkward two-step system (first you go to the footnote, then you go to the reference list). I'll look over the material again, anyway. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have revisited the references per your suggestion. Any other thoughts? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Second review
A few more comments, and we'll be done here...


 * I think I got all the dashes and quotes, and the headers and such have been fixed, so the article now fulfills the MOS standards.
 * The references look much better. :)
 * The lead is better, but there's still nothing from the "Personal" section listed. Perhaps just a sentence or two about where he's from, his family, schooling, or what have you.
 * The writing, although improved for the most part, could still use some work. For example, most paragraphs begin "Gibson", which is somewhat repetitive.  While not a huge deal, if you wish to improve it further, a little variation would help: rather than "Gibson pursued a successful business career. He worked as a salesman for Hoover products", for example, you can write it as "Working as a salesman for Hoover products, Gibson pursued a successful business career."  I did some minor copy-editing of the first section, which you can see here, just to give you an idea of what can be done for sentence variation.

Since the two latter points are relatively minor, I'm satisfied that the article now fulfills the GA-criteria. Great job, and thanks for all of your hard work! I hope to see more quirky articles like this at GAC in the future. María ( habla con migo ) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)