Talk:Olds, Wortman & King/GA1

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

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have read the article more closely. Thank you for pointing out all the issues so I can fix them sometime. Jsayre64   (talk)  23:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Although nominating this was not my idea, and I expected some issues to be raised by the reviewer, I have to say I disagree with several of the points raised in the review, and in my opinion the reviewer also made some mistakes (mistakes that I don't feel are an indication that the article is not sufficiently clear).  For example, in my view, it's fine for the lead to say the store moved "several" times within the downtown area, because the details are given in the body of the article, and the lead is supposed to summarize.  Under 1a, fourth item: The quotation from The Oregonian is not intended to include a wikilinked "Portland"; the city name was not included in the original article, but was added when quoting the article for Wikipedia, to give proper context, and single brackets are proper usage in such cases. The reviewer says "Liberty House" should be wiklinked in one phrase, but it was already linked just eight words earlier, so his/her suggestion is contrary to WP editing guidelines.  In "supplanted by various other uses": Again, some detail is given later in the article, in the appropriate place, and very little detail has been published.  I suppose the phrase could be revised to read simply  "other uses", but I don't see that as an improvement.  That it was "various" uses has been cited, so lack of sourcing is not an issue there.  Some of the terms and phrases the reviewer called peacock terms were just paraphrasing of information from the cited, reliable sources – e.g., that the Galleria was "popular" and that the opening of Pioneer Place was major "blow" to the Galleria. Those are not extreme, inflammatory phrases unsuitable for an encyclopedia, so if reliable sources have been cited for them – which they have been – why does the reviewer feel they should be removed?  Phrases expressing opinion are perfectly fine in WP if respected, reliable sources are cited for them, are they not?  Floors 4 and 5: The numbers should be spelled out? Really? For floor numbers?  Floor numbers are normally expressed in numerals. If Wikipedia's manual of style says otherwise, I might support changing it, but personally I'm not inclined to spend time looking for that info. in the MoS.  I agree that multipage PDFs used for several citations ought to cite specific page numbers.  I know it's possible to do that in the way that doesn't repeat all the common details (name of document, etc.) for every note, but personally I've not yet learned how to do that, particularly in a document (such as this one) that does not use conventional page-number sequencing (page numbers restart at 1 in every section).  I hope someone who does know will tackle that point.   Many of the details the reviewer requests are not given in any of the several newspaper articles and other sources I reviewed and cited, such as the name of the 1851 store and the height of the flag poles.  If every such detail the reviewer requested is considered necessary for the article to reach GA, then the article will not ever reach GA.  Some of the details he/she requested have probably never been published anywhere.  (However, I realize that the reviewer may not have been saying that every one of those omitted details are essential for reaching GA status.)  The phrase "purchased into" it is taken directly from the cited source (NRHP nom., section 8, p. 2, bottom; everything else was carefully paraphrased), and I have no information enabling me to make it more specific. I certainly do accept that some of the reviewer's points are valid, but overall, I feel this review sets the "bar" a little too high – and I'm speaking as someone whose standards are much higher than those of the average WP editor.  Perhaps it's mainly just my inexperience at taking articles from "B" class to GA, but if review this is typical, I don't think I'll be nominating any more articles for GA.  Maybe someone else will overhaul the article, but for the record I (the person who carried out a 7x expansion of it) don't have nearly enough interest to address such a long list of issues, so I'm not intending to spend any more time on the article. SJ Morg (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said you have to correct every single issue, and also, why are you so angry with me? They are mere suggestions, you don't have to address everything, and everyone makes mistakes (with the wiki linking).  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have very little experience with GA reviews, as I acknowledged, but my impression from those I've read is that the reviewer expects the vast majority (sometimes all) of the points he has raised to be corrected before he will approve the nomination. Whether that impression is accurate is something I don't know.  I'm not angry, just frustrated and a little critical. Sorry if it came off badly (particularly my comment on floor numbers, which I should have toned down; I almost went back in afterwards to do so). SJ Morg (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)