Talk:Family honor/GA1

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this. --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Quotes - don't put "family honor" in quotes. Just write it plainly like this:  family honor. --Noleander (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [I have fixed this Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]


 * Lead - Not too bad.  It should summarize the entire article (but lead is maximum 4 paragraphs).  Try to summarize entire article. --Noleander (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Would you like us to mention some of the topics that we're talking about within the article? There are a lot. Of course this needs to be cited. My question is am I to look for sources that give general information on what has been discussed within the article? It's hard to summarize because I would so so in my own words however, I cannot cite myself. I think it may be hard finding information that summarizes what we've already written without going straight to the sources themselves or reiterating what we've written within the article in the intro and just citing it. (I don't believe that's something credible to do? Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]
 * You may be making this harder than it is. The lead does not have to be supported with footnotes ... they are optional in the lead section, see WP:LEAD.  You should write the lead last: when the article is done, you go thru the whole article and distill all of its major points down to 4 paragraphs, and that is the lead.  No footnotes needed in the lead.  My point above is that the lead, now, doesnt summarize the entire article: it is missing lots of key points, such as the per-country/culture information. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Examples - Probably should include some specific examples of behavior related to family honor.  E.g. article already mentions honor killings, maybe give a couple of representative examples of that, and a few other instances of family honor behavior.   Right now the article strikes me as a bit vague ... it could use more specificity; more concreteness. --Noleander (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [That's no problem. This can be done. I'll look into those examples. Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]


 * Illustrations - This is optional:  A couple of more pictures would be nice.  Can you grab some from related WP articles (provided they are directly relevant to family honor)? --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Hi Noleander, i know this is the optional one but it is very hard to find anything that is directly linked to family honor, could we use some that illustrate associated contexts such as gender roles/expectations, traditions etc? Thanks, Esery (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)]


 * Non sequitur - There are several sentences like this one:  "Regardless of their gender or social status, elderly are well-respected" which are not directly related, as far as I can tell, to family honor.  That can be remedied in several ways:  (1) if the source from which that material originated is discussing family honor, capture that detail and put it into the article;  (2) If the sentence is shedding light on some aspect of f.h., then the sentence should follow the f.h. issue, and amplify it, and the connection should be clear.  (3) If the sentence is talking about f.h., but the connection is just not clear, then add words to establish the connection. --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [How elders are treated within the family pertains to how a family upholds it's honor internally within the home. I think family honor can be related to society overall and to the nuclear family as well. Elders within a family are to be honored and respected. In some cultures elders play crucial roles to the functioning of a family and the decision it makes relating to society. That's my take on the information we've gathered which is why it's included. Feel free to disagree and give me your thoughts. When you say shedding light on some aspect of family honor what do you mean exactly. How should a sentence follow a family honor issue? Can you give a more specific example of how this could be fixed? Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]


 * another non sequitur - Here is another non sequitur: "Many women in Turkey are well educated but the ideology of preserving family honor ...".  Why is education related to f.h.? --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Hi Noleander, the original source indicated the higher education level of Turkish women (according to my understanding) that education is not a factor that can affect set societal rules and traditions, such as family honor. In other words, one might think that societies where family honor shapes daily lives, general education levels are low and people are not modern in many ways, which is not the case for this specific example. If this is still very vague, I can remove it or if you have any suggestions about how to tweak it, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks Esery (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)]
 * Thanks for explaining that.  Now what you need to do is add some text into the article, near that sentence, which explains the connection, something like "... education is not a factor that can affect set societal rules and traditions, such as family honor ..."  --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Flow could be better - This is probably the biggest issue (the only big problem, in fact): the article reads like a lot of disjointed paragraphs that do not tell a single, integrated story.  To achieve GA status, it is not necessary to have professional quality writing, so I'm not expecting perfection.  What I'm looking for is a little bit of flow or connectivity.  The lead should outline the entire article.  Then, as the reader reads the article, it should weave a tale.  By "tale" I mean that each section should help the reader place that section in context.  For example, if you have a section on Australia, you might begin that section with "Whereas family honor plays a major role in African lifestyles, in Australia ...".  that is an example of how to tie two sections together.  Or maybe something like "The scholars discussed above treated family honor as a AAA concept, but Peter Smith presented the thesis that BBB ...".  Again, the notion is that each section tells part of the story, and each section tells the reader how that one section fits into the entire story.  --Noleander (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [I think this is something that can be fixed and I see your point as to where the article seems disjointed concerning its content. Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]


 * Ambiguous blue links - Use the tool http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Family_honor to find ambiguous links. These are links that need to be fixed in your article ... there are four of them.  Ask me if you need more details on how to fix.
 * [Links are fixed. Let me know if there are any more problems.] Leishanda G. (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.

Hello Noleander, I appreciate your comments and will take them into consideration. Some of the aspects you touched on such as sentences referencing the elderly. The way elders are treated within the family constitutes an aspect of family honor. Younger members of the family show respect and honor to their elders because of what it means to be an elder within the community and their family. Would you suggest finding sources that make reference to what I just said and adding them to these sections (Applying accordingly to each section of course)? I will look for examples of some of the concepts that we have mentioned (behavior, practices, etc). All of us are currently on vacation. It is harder for me to work on the article from home rather than back at school. Once I return, I will address some of these issues as I'm sure my classmates will do the same. Also, when you say following a family honor issue and amplifying it with a sentence like the one you highlighted above. Can you give a more concrete example of that remedy just so I have the exact idea of what you're saying. Is it a matter of placing the sentence in an area where it makes more sense or is it deeper than that? Thanks. Rojast07 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you do this:  For each of my "comments" above, please respond to it, underneath it?  Where it says "reply here".   That way we can focus on each comment individually. The best path forward to reach GA status is to do each of the things I recommend.  If you have a good reason to object, that is fine: just explain your objection. If you agree with my comments, and do the fix I recommend, then just write "Done" where it says "reply here" ... that way I'll know it has been accomplished.    --Noleander (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: I should say:  I foresee no problem achieving GA status.  The article is  fairly well written, and has good cites, and a lot of work has gone into it.  Just a few things to tweak and it will be good to go. --Noleander (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A bit too much time has gone by ... all the above tasks should be done by now but, for example, the lead is still not in conformance with WP:LEAD. I'd suggest re-nominating for GA again after all the tasks are done. --Noleander (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is sad that an article so close to a GA has been failed due to no response. Even considering the finals week, asking here for few more days shouldn't have been so hard :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Responding to a query on my Talk page to update the GA checklist. The Lead looks much better; and there has been some good work to make the article less disjointed, by starting each section with a reference to the big picture. The two remaining issues I see are (1) a couple more graphical items (such as pictures, tables, or quote boxes) so the article doesn't look like a huge wall of text (this is optional: but try to find something); and (2) make the article a little more of a narrative, so it looks like one cohesive topic. For GA, it does not have to be perfect, professional prose, but the article still reads a litte too much like a bunch of unrelated sections thrown together. One idea: Is there a top-quality source that gives a good overview of Family Honor? If so, consider copying its outline (of course, no copying or close paraphrase of text) and using that as a framework to organize this article. I'm not saying a total re-write is necessary: just a framework, or narrative, so the article tells a story. Thanks for the good work you've put into the article: it is getting better! --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this again. As much as I'd like to see more pictures and such, I am afraid we are out of options; we tried adding an image of a funeral after a family honor killing under fair use but it was removed with the claim that a "free image is possible to obtain". Well, it may be possible, but hardly for us - so no more images are forthcoming in the future. I am not sure what table would be appropriate. Quote, now, I think we could do - looking at the sources, there is a number of good quotes to chose from, something about how important family honor is to our cultures or such, neutral but strong, should be feasible. I could help with the technical side - leave it on my talkpage or add it to the article using the cquote or a related quotation templates you like best, guys.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you all do find a quote or two for the article, here is a template I like to use: Quote box. An example if its use follows.


 * --Noleander (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)