Talk:Foundation for Economic Education/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is GA review #1

I have selected this article to review because it is the one waiting the longest for a GA review, and because I have a small amount of expertise in the area which is the focus of the foundation. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Two of the images (non-free, the foundation logo and the cover of the Freeman) need fair use rationales for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How would an editor add such a thing, and where should it be added? --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though it relates to this article, it is done at the image file itself. Here's an example . BTW, of the 5 images in the article, 3 are considered "free" images and do not need this.  So I only noted the other 2 which are "non-free". North8000 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both images have a "Non-free media information and use rationale."Abel (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool!  Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One of my first impressions is that while, at first glance, it appears to be heavily referenced, after spending about 15 minutes attempting to follow references in about 5 places, I wasn't able to find specific verification of anything. For example, after the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead, there are 7 cites. The first 3 of them point to 3 references that list 35 page numbers and then to next 4 go to either entire website sections or entire documents. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Must an editor repeat an entire reference and change the page number for each reference or is there a way to use different page numbers with ref names --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a way to to do what you say, but that is not where I'd suggest starting on the issue which I noted. The intent of cites / sourcing is to make it so a reader can verify the material which cited it.   I'd recommend, for each location where there is a string of cite marks to pick one source which clearly confirms what was just said, and get rid of the rest of the cites in that string.  In some places you can keep 2 or 3 (particularly when that will avoid eliminating a reference, which you don't want to do) but I would never go beyond three, and certainly not 7. Also, when you are doing this, if you find a specific page number which specifically supports something which cited it, write that down for yourself as it may come in handy later.   North8000 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Example on references
While I changed it a little to start the fix, lets take the first sentence as an example. Before I tweaked it it said: "Established in 1946 to study and advance classical liberalism, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-market organization in the United States". This contains three main statements
 * 1) Established in 1946
 * 2) to study and advance classical liberalism
 * 3) is the oldest free-market organization in the United States The only one of the three which is a strong claim that might be challenged.

Now lets say somebody wants to look at the cites to confirm this. An analogy I use is if you ask the question "can you give me them name of a good barber" and instead of answering you, they unload a dump truck load of phone books onto your front lawn and say "it's all there". While it may look like they gave you more "information" than you asked for, defining "information" being an answer to your question, they have given you zero information. The same situation is sort of present with the cites/references in this article. For the above sentence the article gives SEVEN references; let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is trying to follow the cites to verify the statements (using the numbers as of today, 11/28/12)
 * #2 This points to one place.  Has some other problems (indirect, goes to wayback machine which goes to a previous listing of them in a directory which just quoted their mission statement, and regarding the mission it conflicts with rather than confirming the original mission- which I subsequently fixed) but with respect to the "overload" issue, it is OK


 * #3 This says to go look at 15 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 14 of those will be dead ends.


 * #10 This says to go look at 6 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 5 of those will be dead ends.


 * #11 This just says to go look at an entire book


 * #4 This says to go look at 7 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 6 of those will be dead ends.


 * #12 This just says to go look at an entire book


 * #5 This says to go look at 14 different pages in the book, and from the use of the reference, it's clear that at least 13 of those will be dead ends.

No one thing above (including the multi-page references) is absolutely wrong, but the overall "sum" of all of things is not so good. And there is no one "right" solution. But if you would just find 1 or 2 specific places that support what is in that sentence, and cite those, and get rid of the rest I think that would be a good simple way forward. I suspect that if this practice is used in the article, cutting down those large chains of cite numbers, that the issue of having a large amount of pages on each reference will also automatically get reduced. But, if not, or if you prefer a different approach, there IS a way to cite individual pages without having to repeat all of the reference information. An example of doing this on a large scale is at SS Edmund Fitzgerald. An example of doing this on a small scale / "mixed" basis (just on one reference, the Donaldson reference) is at Folk music. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand it, I need to collect copies of all the existing refences as a bulleted list between ==References== and  with ==Notes==  just above that. Then change all the existing citations to  . Yes? This will allow people to cite a specific page for a specific claim without duplicating entire citations then changing only page numbers. Do I have the syntax right? Abel (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First to clarify, as a reviewer, I'm just saying that we need a little more focus (vs. the non-specific "truckload") on sourcing that actually verifies what cited it. Beyond that everything is just ideas and suggestions.  I not fluent enough to just give the quick definitive answers on syntax etc, but I am fluent enough to help / and  work through it with you and would be happy to do so.  But I don't have all of those sources in order to know which page supports which statement/cite.  Are you able to help in that area?   If so, I'd say let's start and I'd be happy to take the first step. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and make those changes. I guarantee that if they are not quite right, someone will very soon chime in with a disparaging comment. Abel (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article started out with exact page references, but with reusable ref links having the limitation of not allowing anything other than just adding page numbers to the one reference as new pages of the same source were needed, those original references are now drowning in page numbers. Now that the massive work of changing from cite to sfn is complete, each use of the same reference can involve a different page number for the same source. I put page=000 in the code so anyone can easily just change the page numbers for each sfn citation. If you look in the references first, the pages are all there. Just need to find which pages go with which claims. --Abel (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not fluent enough to critique the "2-stage" referencing details....I thought that there would be only one cite to each of the ones in the first section, but again, I have just done a few and am not fluent on it or the norms.  I think that one thing that will simplify this task is in many places there are way too many cites.  (too many cites, not too many references)   In places where one sentence has like 8 cites after it once we find one or two specific ones we can delete the other 6 or 7 (as long as that doesn't delete or orphan a reference.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Review item
I find the coverage of the topic to be rather spotty. A look at the outline for the article is a good indicator:

1 History

2 Programs

2.1 Seminars

2.2 Evenings at FEE

2.3 Publications

And "History" really doesn't cover the history....just a bit on the founding and and going through who key subsequent people are. (That's just a very inaccurate summary of mine)


 * There is a good reason for this. Almost all sources that talk about the organization focus on the early years. Probably because of the fame of the founders. Current activities are covered some. Hopefully, the middle years are buried somewhere that I just have not yet been able to find. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So one thought is "where are the other missing sections?"

The first paragraph of the lead seems like a brief summary of a missing section.


 * Sorry about that. Moved the section about the headquarters to Hillside (1889) on the advice of another editor, then forgot to remove that from the lead. --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I was indirect / unclear. I was actually implying that it would be good to add a section on what is summarized in the lead, not deleting what is in the lead. This is not hard-and-fast, just a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought the lead was supposed to be a summary of everything else. Maybe just add some of the lead stuff into history? Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead should be a summary of what is in the article.  If you have something that is in the lead which is not in the article, "copying" that material to somewhere in the body is a good start on a fix. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Take us a bit more through its history and evolution. Also, it is a facility? One can't tell from reading the article.


 * It is an organization. This organization has a long history at a historic location, but that is about to change. The change has been in the works for quite some time, but this will still be emotional for supporters when it becomes final. Think that it is mostly a done deal, but expect more stir once it actually becomes fact and not just a plan pending approval. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, now you have told ME those things, but you still haven't told the readers those things. Should be in the article, at lease the wp:verifiable stuff should be in the article. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll see what I can find. --Abel (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There used to be an entire section on the historic location of the organization's headquarters, Hillside. Someone said that having it here would violate the Good Article criteria that the article "remain focused." So I moved it, after editing, to Hillside, a point of interest within Irvington, New York, where the structure is located. Abel (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the talk page comments but didn't go back to analyze what was in the article then. Possibly it went too deep in?   But getting some basics in there (saying that they are at a facility, and what happens there (are the seminars there etc.?) is not too far afield. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that this article is going to need a lot of work to become a Good Article. It's a great topic and I'd be happy to help some. If there are folks actively involved I'd be happy to make some more specific suggestions and also help implement them, at least the type of help that doesn't take a lot of outside research. Maybe we could get through all of that work during this GA review cycle. Are there involved folks who are up for this effort. ? Again, I'd be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Reviewer.


 * That was exactly the thinking behind the Good Article nomination. To find the specifics that I am unaware of so that I and others can help improve the article beyond just what little I currently know. --Abel (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'd be happy to work with you on this.  There's a lot to answer......some answers will be brief at first and then I'll expand them later. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Any and all help is greatly appreciated. You should see what it used to look like . :) Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I may be a bit more experienced but I'm not perfect. When I edit, I'm working as an editor, not a reviewer. Feel free to revert, disagree, etc.. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Will be happy to disagree with you at some point. So far, I cannot find any reason to disagree. Abel (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Update
As indicated, I'd be happy to help on the article to a certain extent. Based on that "extent" this is going to need the involvement of a person who is willing and able to access and dig into those sources which have been cited a large number of times. I think that me and that person together could untangle the sourcing issues here. But without that I don't seeing this getting to where I could pass it. Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources? North8000 (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Going once on this open question. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article started out with exact page references, but with reusable ref links having the limitation of not allowing anything other than just adding page numbers to the one reference as new pages of the same source were needed, those original references are now drowning in page numbers. Now that the massive work of changing from cite to sfn is complete, each use of the same reference can involve a different page number for the same source. I put page=000 in the code so anyone can easily just change the page numbers for each sfn citation. If you look in the references first, the pages are all there. Just need to find which pages go with which claims.Abel (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I don't have access to the sources, but I'll look in history..if I can find which page number they added for which cite and see if I can help.   Just reiterating, this is more than I asked for for GA but this harder route there I think will help the article more in the long run. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just info to keep organized, I am reviewing a block of edits (August 2012) to look for this type of information. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I agree. All that work was not remotely required for a good article, but will likely make a future featured article status far easier so better in the long run. Wish I had known about sfn in the beginning, would have used that from the start. Like I said, all the pages are in the history. Anyone can go through and find where new claims were added and new page numbers were added to the existing citations to support the new claims. Or just look in the sources themselves. Either way, it will take some doing, but it is now possible thanks to the sfn conversion. When all this is complete, the citations will be bulletproof so it will be worth the effort. I've started on some and you have found others so it is really now just a matter of time before they are all exact. Abel (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GA criteria
Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
 * Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * Could meet this criteria now. Has 5 images, and the two non-free ones now have rationales. But it would be nice to have a picture of their facility/hq.   Is that feasible?  North8000 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many, but every one that I have seen was not freely available. Abel (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a freely available [[Media:Hillside in Irvington, New York.jpg|image]]. --Abel (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to put it in? Need any help? North8000 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will definitely find a way to bring back everything that I removed to accommodate the comments of another editor. The conversion to citations turned out to be a ridiculous amount of work. Abel (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand.  My comment was respect to addition of  the image. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As was my comment. The image alone would just get deleted as something that is out of place. Abel (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, lack of the image would certainly not keep the article from passing. But I'm not sure what would lead you to say that. An image of their building would not be out of place. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you have not seen how many times people have attempted to wholesale delete every image in the article. There were times when people deleted images and left edit comments that made it sound like they were just correcting a typographical error. Abel (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What they did doesn't sound right. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment
It has been two weeks since there has been any action on this review, either here or editing on the article. Is work going to resume soon? If the article still has a significant amount of work remaining to achieve a GA level, perhaps it should be concluded; the review is over seven weeks old at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm the reviewer. IMHO the work needed to get this to the point of passing is of a type that immensely slow/difficult/inefficient (e.g. like mowing a lawn with scissors) unless it is handled by a person with the references in hand. I had planned to try but as someone not having the references in hand now I'm thinking not.  There doesn't appear to be a person with the references in hand to do this. If so, please say so soon.  Otherwise I think that I'll need to non-pass this. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The writer hasn't edited in two weeks so that may be best. Wizardman  00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Collected the exact page references of each citation, and added the references to each citation as I went. Was later told that I had to split them all apart using sfn citations, so I did. Now all that work is pointless because I am not fast enough at finishing off the mountains of work required? Maybe I can crank out a little blood along with the sweat and tears. --Abel (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading carefully what I wrote as I think that you misunderstood in several areas. But if you could just answer my one question that I asked: "Is there anyone here willing and able to access and dig into those sources?" I think that that is the most important "next step question" at this point.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is someone willing. Me. However, I need time to do all this. --Abel (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to some of the sources...particularly the heavily used ones? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the pages numbers were added with each new claim so it is all in the article history. It might be faster to go to the sources, which is what I did the first time, and can certainly do again.Abel (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let's take an example. This is regarding what is now the first large strings of cites, which are those which follow "or feature one prominent speaker for the Evenings at FEE series...."  Could you find a one page in one of those references which supports that sentence, and put it in?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that I need to clarify the situation here; whether or not we have a route forward that could move this forward quickly enough to be handled while the current review is open. I think that I will use the question that I just asked to clarify that. So, in short, if we can't get that ONE item handled quickly, I'm going to close this as "non-pass" after which the article could get fixed up at a more comfortable pace and re-submitted later. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Edited North8000 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sadly forced to non-pass this article at this time. I say "sadly" for a multitude of reasons. Able has done a lot of work on it, albeit while "missing the point" on what I have been asking for since November 28th. This is a very interesting and worthwhile topic; I was willing to substantially help here as well, but was stymied by the fact that nobody was doing the part that I am not able to do, which is finding specific support for "cited" statements in the off-line references used (and the heavily used ones are all off-line). I have been asking for this many times since November 28th, and not a single one has been produced. This means that I see no route to getting this fixed within the time frame of a GA review, doubly so for one which I started the review on last November. Abel, you are to be congratulated and thanked for your efforts here. If there is a way that I can help at the article via working on it or providing feedback, or an expedited review after it's fixed up, please ping me....I'd be happy to. I'd love to see this article get fixed up and then be resubmitted for and pass as a Wikipedia Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would love to make the changes that you asked for. In fact, I was in the middle of doing just that when someone deleted the citations that I was about to add the page numbers that you asked for. I had set up the article to have page=000 for all the instances that you wanted a specific page number to support that specific citation. This way I could just change 000 to the actual page number, problem solved. Then someone up and deleted most of them. Kind of had to make the changes you asked for with people removing the code that was about to become just the thing you requested. Abel (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is much confusion here. I believe that the edit that you are referring to (deleting cites) was by me, which was a baby step towards resolving the problems.  To skip the long story and simplify, I have just reversed/reverted/undid that edit of mine, which restores the cites.  I would recomment that further discussion occur at the article talk page rathr than the review page.    This can be confusing, since the review page is transcluded onto the talk page.    I will add a new "Additional discussion" section to the article talk page to clarify/provide a place for this. Let me know how I can help.  Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All 15 Phillips-Fein citations now have page numbers.--Abel (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Plehwe 2006 citations now have page numbers. Abel (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

End of Good Article Review #1