Talk:Destruction of ivory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Pleased to be working with you, Rhododendrites. This looks fine on my first cursory glance. I intend to have this review done by the end of the week with comments for you to make corrections, if needed. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I note that the Fortune citation does not say Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon was "in attendance" only that he agreed to the proposed ban. Please fix. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The press release says that the speech is from Wong Kam-sing but the article credits Paul Shin. Please fix. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The US News & World Report source is being used in-line to verify stuff it doesn't. The WWF source is sufficient, so I'm not sure why the former was included. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Tom Milliken quote about needing proof that reducing supply leads to a reduction in demand doesn't appear in the source. That's the thrust of what he's saying so I'd recommend you just remove the quotation marks. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * After now having read every single source, which took a while, I can verify there's no original research although as I comment below, you could make an argument that 6 + 1.7 = 7.7 is OR if the source doesn't say that, especially if you also have doubts the sky is actually blue. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are properly licensed for CC-BY. We're fortunate to have had pictures donated, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing these reviews always forces me to learn way more about a subject then I ever intended to. This is a well-written article and covers all perspectives about the subject. All sources have been verified and I'm glad this sat on the shelf if only because I get more points in the 4th GA Cup for it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are properly licensed for CC-BY. We're fortunate to have had pictures donated, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing these reviews always forces me to learn way more about a subject then I ever intended to. This is a well-written article and covers all perspectives about the subject. All sources have been verified and I'm glad this sat on the shelf if only because I get more points in the 4th GA Cup for it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing these reviews always forces me to learn way more about a subject then I ever intended to. This is a well-written article and covers all perspectives about the subject. All sources have been verified and I'm glad this sat on the shelf if only because I get more points in the 4th GA Cup for it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and edits (and review -- I was surprised how long this one sat on the GAN shelf). I have one follow up to one of your edits: regarding 7.7 tons vs. 6 tons in this source, the "7.7 tons 'lost' or stolen" in the article is the sum of the 6 in "But a subsequent audit revealed that customs had "lost" almost six tons of this ivory" and 1.7 from "Customs turned its 2009 seizure over to PAWB, which soon discovered that it too had mice in its larder. Someone broke into its storeroom and stole more than 1.7 tons." It doesn't sum them in the article, but it didn't seem like OR to me to do so. Regarding the Fortune citation, the statement that he was "in attendance" is based on the line where it quotes something he "said at the ceremony". Similarly, it didn't seem like OR was necessary to come to that conclusion, but maybe it's more controversial than I thought? It's certainly not a crucial line, if it ends up needing to be removed. Thanks again. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll accept your point about attendance at the ceremony. I guess I didn't read the source closely enough. I'll also buy-off on your arithmetic although I don't prefer to use any calculation the source doesn't per se provide. There are a couple small sourcing items I need to see fixed, however. I'm sorry this review has taken so long. I've been very busy with school and it takes dedicated time to sit and read sources although I perform some drive-by countervandalism on wiki daily. This GA Cup is somewhat ill-timed for me and I had to grab primo opportunities like this review as soon as the content started. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point about the USN&WR source not actually supporting most of the lines it's on. My guess is that someone (likely me) intended to just copy the WWF source and accidentally grabbed that text, too. Regardless, it's fixed now (removed from all but the UAE line). The Milliken quote did come from one of the sources, but it was indeed absent from where it needed to be. It's there now. No problem re: review time. This was pending since May, so a few extra days is nothing. Happy to address any other issues you notice. Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)