Talk:Dimple/GA1

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be glad to review this and will leave some initial feedback after a quick readthrough. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this topic. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the entry is quite far from meeting the WP:Good article criteria right now. I am finding that he entry is stable and neutral (criteria #4 and #5), but it doesn't meet the standards set by the other criteria. Since the article would require substantial work to bring it up to standard on the other four criteria, it makes the most sense to close this nomination as unsuccessful. The nominator can then work through the feedback below at his/her own pace before deciding whether to nominate the article again at some point.

Verifiability
Here are some sourcing issues that weaken this article's verifiability. Of course, all of the sources should be double-checked for similar problems.


 * gelasin - this old term is cited only to wordsmith.org, which looks like a fun online community but wouldn't meet the reliable source (RS) standards, particularly in terms of editorial oversight.


 * "it is certain that humans with cheek dimples are more likely to have them in both cheeks" - in the body of the article, this seems to be attributed to the Almaary source. The Almaary study only included 216 dimpled people, presumably in one country, and I don't see where they claimed to be certain about anything.


 * In the anatomy section's discussion of the bifid zygomaticus major, there is close paraphrasing from the cited source. This is considered a copyright issue and should be addressed as a high priority!


 * more common in females - the Almaary subjects were 79% female, so one would expect that both the unilateral and bilateral groups would have more females. Their data doesn't say anything about whether the feature is more common in females.


 * Professor John McDonald... - I think this might be a self-published source.


 * the University of Utah considers - usually a whole school doesn't hold a particular view. In this case, the work is from the university's Genetic Science Learning Center.


 * People with a mesoprosopic face - There were more mesoprosopic faces in the study, but I don't think we can say whether that's due to an actual difference in dimple prevalence or some other feature of the study design.

I won't drag out the point here, but later in the entry I also see a number of references that are clearly not reliable, such as yourchineseastrology dot com and ourdecline dot com. These references - and especially the issues with close paraphrasing - need to be cleaned up before considering another GA nomination.

Writing
Here are some examples of the writing problems. Once you get the sourcing ready, I think that a WP:GOCE copyediting request might help before considering another GA nomination.


 * "entices people who think they are physically attractive" - isn't this true of any physical feature?
 * Overview - no need for a section heading like this. The lead section provides an overview of the topic.
 * It was originally concluded that 60%..." - what do we mean by originally? This is also a run-on sentence, and it's unclear to me how culture (versus race or ethnicity) influences dimple location.
 * "a possible 12.8% of bilateral people have" - unclear; some of the dimples, not the people, are bilateral
 * "The other common type of facial dimple form near the mouth in three types" - too many uses of types
 * "a good luck charm (particularly, children born with them are seen as pleasant, polite and enthusiastic)" - the examples here are related to perceived personality traits, not luck. Are we saying that the dimples gave the children the good fortune of having grown up to be pleasant?
 * "had his cheek dimples gushed about" - try starting this sentence with "Photoplay gushed [or a more neutral word] about the dimples on Reginald Denny, who was a British..."
 * "Professor Michael Williams inferred..." - I don't see an inference. It's a direct quote.

Breadth
I'm having some difficulty determining the scope of this article; the lead mentions four kinds of dimples but only names two of them, and the article only gives significant attention to cheek dimples. I'm also curious about how this article is distinct from skin dimple, which is also an indentation in the skin that is common on the face. I left a talk page message over at that entry a couple of days ago, so hopefully we'll get some opinions.

Photo
One additional thing to think about: Are we sure that the photograph of the Dimple Maker was published in 1936 (or at least before 1950)? That's what your public domain tag seems to depend on, but the cited photo source is a blog from 2013. The device may have been invented and photographed in 1936, but I don't see a clear indication that the photo was published at that time.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thank you for your continued work on WP articles. I hope you won't be too discouraged by this. If I can answer questions about this review, please feel free to reach out. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)