Talk:Getty Villa/GA4

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

Will begin shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The last review performed amounts to a rubber stamp or Quick Pass without proper review in order to pass the article after the review before that found the contributing and nominating editor to be "noncompliant" in wiki policy, procedure, guideline and Bright-line rules. The editor states, "I feel that this article has previously been unfairly failed due to conflicts wirh editors. I also do believe that GA is oft being treated as if it were an FA nomination. This exceeds the quality of any other source or encyclopedia on the topic, and therefore I should pass it with no further review. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"

Per Wiki When you have nominated an article, the only way for it to pass is for a reviewer to look over the article and make sure that it complies with the GA criteria and meets other MoS guidelines such as an adequate lead, correct grammar, and reliable sourcing. This was not done in the last by the last reviewer, as he admits and feels that as long as it fits his POV on what is an average article on Wikipedia it should be listed as GA.

It is very strange that you did not provide the prior nominator with notice of your reassessment. I am always willing to work with editors to adress their concerns. The above reassessment is simply incorrect when he says "Getty never lived in this house." He lived in the house prior to it evolving into the grounds of a museum. No specific statement is cited as being POV pushing. There are numerous sources for the fact that Getty lived there. I do not understand his general claim that the sources cited do not support the article. Racepacket (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? He didn't follow procedure at all and didn't even create or use the proper review page. He didn't feel the need to notify me....so why would you think I should be obligated to notify him?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A better question...since you bring it up, would be: why someone would quick pass an article for GA when a reviewer had made a fully detailed list of notes and most were simply ignored by the both the nominator and quick pass reviewer. I now feel extremely uncomfortable with your nominations and believe it is possible that you feel a slight obligation on the part of others to pass your articles within your interpretations.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by a "quick pass," the reviewer conducted an independent review of the article and found that it met the criteria. I respect your opinion and understand that people can have different impressions of the same article.  However, I do not see how you can conclude that the article was inaccurate.  Getty did live in his home (which was a very large ranch house.)  He then built a wing on one side to house his art collection.  Later, in 1974 a new building modeled after an Italian villa opened as a museum. Perhaps you are reading sources which correctly say that Getty never visited the 1974 villa building (which is down the hill from his house.) There is nothing to prohibit having footnotes in an infobox, nor is there a requirement that the infobox cannot contain information unless it is also repeated in the article.  In fact, the GA criteria have been repeatedly interpreted as not even requiring an infoxbox at all.  The photos in aligned with the text relate to the prose.  Perhaps you should take another look at your concerns. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The chart above asks why "It was opened in 1974,[6]" has a footnote. The answer is that fn 6 is the source of the fact that it was opened in 1974.
 * The lead was expanded on March 2 to reflect all sections of the article. Is there something that the reviewer feels is missing from the current lead?
 * The review under Criteria 1(a) says, "The article is about this museum and therefor should state that outright and upfront in the first sentence." But the first sentence does exactly that: "The Getty Villa in Pacific Palisades, California, USA, is one of two locations of the J. Paul Getty Museum."
 * "There should be no references in the information box." - Please cite a wikipedia policy prohibiting references in the infobox.
 * "All images comply with MOS and all image guidelines...except one." - It is not clear if you are troubled by one image or one guideline. I do not read the GA Criteria as applying all image guidelines. As I understand criteria 6(b) "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." I do not see any images in the article which fail to be relevant to the Getty Villa.  I can understand that people may differ on "relevance", so please explain your concern.
 * "Reads like a brochure...." Wikipedia has a number of websites covering the Getty Trust and its programs.  These articles cover the Getty Trust's recent fiscal challenges and cutbacks, an investigation by the California Attorney General, repatriation disputes with foreign countries, etc.  This particular article discusses the repatriation of 40 art objects that were looted from Italy.  The other controversies are covered in other articles where they are more relevant.  This is not a "puff piece."
 * I don't understand how an article can be both a close paraphrase of he Getty website and the "article is mostly Original Research" at the same time. Racepacket (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)