Talk:George Mason Memorial/GA1

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

Reviewer: Knope7 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I will start reviewing this article. Knope7 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * 2) The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 3) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 4) Some of the content in the lead section should be integrated into the article. The lead should be a summary and rarely include information not in the body of the article. The fact that weddings are permitted at the sight is more appropriate for the body of the article. Likewise, the information about George Mason as a founder should be in the article in greater detail with a shorter summary in the lead.
 * 5) Integrated content from the lead section into the article. I must now construct a new lead.Abel (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Constructed a new lead.Abel (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * 8) It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * 9) As a reader, I find the reference style confusing. It looks like there are two layers of footnotes for certain references. For example, citing " Jarvis 2016b" [layer 1] which is then a link to the reference footnotes for "Jarvis, Jonathan B. (15 Feb 2016b). George Mason Memorial. Washington, DC: National Park Service" [layer 2]. It would be easier just to cite to the reference footnotes and skip the "Jarvis 2016b" explanatory footnote. I recommend using alphabetical footnotes for explanatory notes and numbers for the references. See WP:EXPLNOTE.
 * 10) There are two Jonathan B. Jarvis references in 2016, hence 22 March 2016a and 15 Feb 2016b. Abel (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * 12) There is some inconsistency with the style. The "Location" and "History" sections have consecutive citations to the same source. Other sections do not. It is acceptable, and even encouraged, to leave out footnotes where multiple consecutive sentences cite to the same source. I would recommend using hidden citations to make sure each sentence in About is attributable to the Jarvis source.
 * 13) How does one make a citation hidden? Abel (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) It contains no original research:
 * 15) The section on Cherry Blossoms needs work. There are currently two sources cited. One source only gives a history of Cherry Blossoms in DC and is not connected to the memorial. The second article is questionable as to whether it is part of the Cherry Blossom Festival. The Festival is only mentioned in the title of the source, not the actual body of the article.
 * 16) Deleted. Abel (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) The Rehnquist remarks do not reference does not mention the memorial by name nor does it reference the memorial's location.
 * 18) Deleted. Abel (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 20) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * 21) It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * 22) The article does a very nice job of providing a sense of what the memorial looks like. I think it is lacking in true history and in explaining why a memorial to George Mason. The lead gives a little background into Mason but I think a complete article would have an explanation of who George Mason was in the article and why the memorial is dedicated to him. There are many founding fathers and not all have memorials. Who suggested George Mason? Were there any people or groups advocating for a George Mason memorial?
 * 23) I can find no reliable sources that cover the information that you want. . Abel (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 25) Is it neutral?
 * 26) It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 27) Is it stable?
 * 28) It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 29) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * 30) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 31) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 32) Overall:
 * 33) Pass or Fail:
 * 34) I will place this article on a one week hold because there is a responsive nominator actively working to improve the article. I still have some concerns about the new section now labeled "About" as it sounds like a catch all. Perhaps splitting it up into a section about George Mason and another section about its place in the national park system, including the sentence that currently ends the "History" section would help. There are likely other approaches that could work too. I understand that the nature of this memorial means the article will be on the shorter side, however, I do think it could benefit from a little additional research. For example, one of the sources mentioned it is one of the less well known memorials. Details about how many visitors a year, etc would be appropriate. Knope7 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 35) Broke up About section. Abel (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * 2) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 3) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 4) Overall:
 * 5) Pass or Fail:
 * 6) I will place this article on a one week hold because there is a responsive nominator actively working to improve the article. I still have some concerns about the new section now labeled "About" as it sounds like a catch all. Perhaps splitting it up into a section about George Mason and another section about its place in the national park system, including the sentence that currently ends the "History" section would help. There are likely other approaches that could work too. I understand that the nature of this memorial means the article will be on the shorter side, however, I do think it could benefit from a little additional research. For example, one of the sources mentioned it is one of the less well known memorials. Details about how many visitors a year, etc would be appropriate. Knope7 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Broke up About section. Abel (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Broke up About section. Abel (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Final comments: I apologize for the delay. While I appreciate the effort to improve the article, unfortunately the footnotes have not been sufficiently fixed. Reference 10 to Sadon, Rachel does not actually appear to be anywhere in the article. Also, having Notes and References both use numbers is confusing. I do not think the Notes or Reference sections are a good use of WP:FNNR. Also, the article relies very heavily on literature published by the National Parks Service, which administers the site. The article for to Coleman, David links to google rather than the actual website (a small fix). That article and I few others on google suggest the garden at the memorial has been around since the early 1900s, a fact absent from the article. The Washington Post appears to have more useful articles including this one which that the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall Plantation sponsored the memorial. While I do not expect the article to be exhaustive, I think the scope of the article should be improved based on resources that are readily available.


 * I do think that the section headings and organization are better than before. Best of luck continuing your progress. Knope7 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What the hell?
Quoted from User_talk:Knope7#George_Mason_Memorial: The one week hold on the review of the George Mason Memorial seems to have turned into a two week hold. Not to rush you, but am not sure what else I can do without you evaluating the changes that I made to address concerns. Abel (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I make changes to address all the concerns that you mentioned. I wait for you to reply for two weeks. I ask you to respond to the changes. Instead of continuing the process, you fail the review. What the hell? Abel (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasons for failing the article at the bottom of my review. You did address some of my concerns but not enough of them to make the article match the good article criteria. I pointed out the issue with the footnotes the first time and upon second review the problem had gotten worse, not better. The article is not comprehensive enough to be a good article at this time. I mention these factors in my final comments to the bottom of my review. Knope7 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You noted concerns. I made changes to address your concerns. You ignored the article for two weeks. A reasonable person would have expected you to wait more than a fraction of one second for me to reply before failing the review given that I patiently waited two weeks for you to reply. Abel (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am under no obligation to put the review on hold multiple times. I didn't even have to do that the first time. When I looked over the article today, the footnotes were worse, which indicates the problem will not be a quick fix. Also, the research and writing required to make the article more comprehensive is not a quick fix. My giving you two weeks instead of one meant you had more time to make the article fit the good article criteria. I am sorry you are disappointed by the outcome, but I am disappointed that you are becoming argumentative. I would be happy to answer questions about why I came to my conclusion. but the accusations and incorrect characterizations need to stop. Knope7 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * None of it is an accusation nor is any of it incorrect, which is why you are so angry. Abel (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)