Talk:Emeka Ogboh/GA2

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

Reviewer: Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, In the past I start with the process as described here - Reviewing good articles and post it in the GA review discussion. It helps keep me on task. There is some redundancy, but I don't have a problems with that.


 * Good lede


 * In the second sentence, reversing the clauses seems to read better. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution.


 * Checking refs

Comment? The same info may be in ref 2. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉


 * ✅ - Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There were no responses to the blog post so it can stand alone I believe. What is your opinion about this source? Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉
 * Comment - I don't understand why the Smithsonian site is so spammy. Isn't it a federally-funded museum? (Answer not required) [ [User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]] ✐   ✉


 * ✅ - per discussion Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉


 * The article should not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research. Perfectly formatted citations are not required.


 * ✅ - I read many of the sources and no synths, opinions or assumptions have been made in the article. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.


 * ✅ Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the first sections should be merged? It won't matter for this review, but I know I get my articles edited all the time for having short sections. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉


 * ✅ - per discussion, you don't need a check mark for this but it keeps me on task. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉

Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉
 * The article should be written from a neutral point of view.


 * ✅ - per discussion. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here.


 * ✅ I don't think I've seen a more stable article. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉


 * The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses.


 * ✅ - I checked out the sound file and was fascinated by the source and by the fact that it was uploaded by the artist himself, who didn't take advantage or the opportunity to insert it into articles himself. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is free of obvious copyright violations.


 * ✅ No copyright violations Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉


 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  11:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Barbara! I used reliable, secondary sources whenever possible, and any primary sources were used sparingly to fill in uncontroversial biographical detail, which should be okay as a self-published source about self. Same for the (ref 7) Another Africa interview: I wouldn't trust it for original claims, but it's reasonable to believe that it is an actual interview with Ogboh and can be used for uncontroversial claims about his work. And re: the Smithsonian :) the one from the African art museum is a press release, hence what reads as promotional copy, but if you mean the Smithsonian (magazine), I have no ready defense of the mag's tone. I agree that the first section is short, but I didn't think it was worth renaming a combined section "Early life and career" when the early life could reasonably be separated (and possibly later expanded). Thanks again for the review czar  13:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great answers and acceptable. What's nice about the review is that it documents the reason for including a primary source and two of us have agreed that it is appropriate - and the same for the Smithsonian. Filling biographical data is a perfect reason that the primary source is used. AND it could be removed when another editor comes behind us and improves the ref. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Is there anything else you need on my end? (closing instructions) czar  04:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I expect to finish up by the end of the day. I need to do a serious and slow read through and don't anticipate any bumps in the road. Even if I find a glitch I usually just correct it myself since that's easier than bringing it up here and asking you to fix it. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed duplicate links but still realize that you may want to retain these for your own editorial reasons. I can undo these edits if that is what you would like or feel free to revert. Also, though this article is not an orphan many readers would find it more easily if it was linked to from other articles. I found only five or six links to the article. This has nothing to do with being a GA but thought you might like to know.Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I link first usages in both the lede and main text (per MOS:DUPLINK, and sometimes even again if the term hasn't been used in a while). It's a better reading experience for those who skim or skip sections (such as myself) and I don't see much reader benefit in stringent adherence to one-link-per-article, as long as the article isn't a sea of blue. Feel free to pass article names along if you have suggestions for other articles to link here, but I linked the ones I thought were appropriate. (Smaller name biographies tend to not be linked in many places, as they're not as linked to the wider web of industry.) czar  15:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)