Talk:Ganas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, the article seems stable as it hasn't been edited (apart from one minor edit) since January. Looking at the talkpage, however, shows a long history of disputes on the content of the article, right up to the point when editing on the article seems, for some reason, to have ceased. Much of the recent(ish) editing has been done by two or three editors who, looking at the talkpage discussions, have strong points of view on the subject, so perhaps inevitably, there is still some question over neutrality. The neutrality tag was brought up recently on the talkpage and the one editor who responded does not seem happy with the current content included, questioning the appropriateness of some of it. Another editor heavily involved in disputes has not been active since January. It's really hard to tell to what extent disputes have been resolved, if they have at all. I'm not sure exactly why the neutrality tag was put on the article, but I agree that the article does not quite meet the standard of WP:NPOV at the moment. Some sentences actually seem to describe the group in slightly promotional tones (probably due to the close paraphrasing of the group's website, more on that below), and there seems to be undue weight on rumours and allegations, including some that seem to be unrelated to Ganas. I'd say quite a bit of work needs to be done on the content, and disputes need to be resolved, rather than just allowed to die away quietly, before this can meet the [WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]]. I have no idea if the main editors of the article consider it to be GA-standard yet as the nomination seems to have been made purely as a response to a random compliment on the talkpage. I will go through the article and point out some other ways to improve the article.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some issues listed below, would benefit from a copyedit or at least a proofread
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some issues with verifiability, WP:SYNTH
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Seem to be some gaps in the information, undue weight on possibly unrelated matters.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutrality is disputed, some comments below
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Have been content disputes which don't seem to be resolved
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No problems with images
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead History Culture Business and Financial Info Controversy & Criticism References External links
 * Prose/manual of style issues
 * There are numerous minor issues regarding the manual of style, some of which I have corrected. If and when the article gets nearer a "finished" state regarding the content, it would benefit from a copyedit from someone who is uninvolved, and is more familiar with the MOS.
 * This is not a GA issue, but generally developed articles don't have so many citations in the lead. Remember that per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the main points of the article, so there shouldn't be anything there (with rare exceptions) that isn't included, and preferably expanded on, later on. Inline citations should accompany the facts when they appear in the main body of the article, meaning that the lead can be left cite-free which is easier to read. (There are some exceptions; direct quotes, for example).
 * "Ganas is an urban experiment committed to exploring applications of Feedback Learning" - this is close paraphrasing of the source (the Ganas website), more care needs to be taken to change the wording to avoid copyright infringement. Note that although WP:PARAPHRASE is just an essay, it has been written to help editors avoid violating the copyright policy.
 * "Participation in the group process is obligatory in some situations." - what situations would those be? This is not explained later in the article
 * "10–12", "60 to 70" (in the same sentence), style needs to be more consistent
 * Make sure the lead summarises the main points of the article, and doesn't just act as an introduction. There is a (relatively) large section on finance which is not mentioned in the lead.
 * I realise this has been the subject of some dispute, but it's unclear why there is this paragraph on GROW. I'm not saying that group shouldn't be mentioned, but it's not at all clear why it is, other than to drag up some murky history on the founder. Nothing in that paragraph is directly relevant to Ganas (other than the implication that if her first group was fraudulent, her next group must be too). If this is kept in, it also needs to be a bit clearer whether or not GROW was actually convicted of anything. Investigations are mentioned, but no convictions. "that same year, a general investigation into unregulated mental therapy in New York..." - is this directly related (in sources) to the GROW investigations? Or is it just WP:SYNTH? Be careful also of WP:UNDUE
 * "core group" or "core-group"? Be consistent.
 * A brief explanation of biofeedback would be helpful
 * Foundation for Feedback Learning is a circular link, so isn't helpful to readers
 * "May of 2006" → just "May 2006"
 * This shooting incident, although the reason that the group made headlines, should probably be moved further down. It doesn't flow well at present, having a bit of history, a bit about the shared ownership of houses, this guy got shot in 2006, and then you actually start telling us about the group's culture/activities
 * The discussion of Feedback Learning seems to mainly consist of two lengthy quotes. I appreciate that they have both been included to show two opposing viewpoints, but the facts should be summarised more, rather than just quoting.
 * subheadings should be in sentence case and use full words (ie. not "info")
 * Everything Goes does not need to be in quotation marks
 * "Full time work is 35 hours a week, and wages cover all community expenses plus a $300/mo stipend. Profit sharing opportunities may be available to some members." - full time work for whom? All of the group members? These two sentences seem a bit randomly stuck in, almost like a job advert... then again, it has been too-closely paraphrased from the website.
 * Spell out or wikilink (or both) IRS - remember not all Wikipedia readers are American.
 * Why does this section refer to FFL, as if that is the current name of the group? Hasn't it been Ganas since the early 90s?
 * This has been the subject of dispute, and to me, it seems somewhat less-than-neutral. What form have these "serious allegations" taken? Have they been made in court? Have investigations been made? Have accusations been made via the press? it's all a little vague.
 * Not sure why the public perception of the group as a "commune" is included as "controversy" or "criticism".
 * Really not sure about the "wife swapping" sentence. Firstly, it says "the media has characterized" - but this is supported by one citation to one article in one newspaper - is this one article representing the whole of "the media"? Secondly, I would only consider it really notable to mention this if the fact itself has been reported on. Eg. if there was an article in (for example) the Washington post which described the group in general terms and went on to say "the group has been characterized by the media as indulging in "wife-swapping"", then it might be worth mentioning. I don't see the point of including a link that goes to swinging either - that's clearly not adding anything to this article.
 * Dates shouldn't be linked
 * Newspaper titles should be in italics
 * Dates should be consistently formatted (not a GA requirement)
 * Including a link to a website on the GROW controversy seems to be putting undue weight onto GROW


 * Verifiability/referencing
 * There is a citation needed template
 * There is no newspaper called London Sunday Times
 * More info needs to be included in many references to enable readers to properly verify information
 * Online only sources need retrieval dates added


 * Broad in coverage?
 * Is there no information on the other five founding members?
 * No info on why it's called Ganas? I know this has been discussed, but I saw it mentioned in one of the sources, and from the talkpage discussion, I gather that the group has made it known why it chose that name. I'm sure some readers would be interested to know.
 * I think we could use some more info on the day to day activities of the members. For example, at least one of the secondary sources mentions some of the group's activities in the neighbourhood they live in.
 * Any particular reason Mildred Gordon left the group?

Once any issues have been resolved, I'd recommend taking the article to peer review before another GA nomination. -- Beloved Freak  12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)