Talk:Public Storage/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 12:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominator: CorporateM (talk · contribs) 00:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be your reviewer this time. I'll begin with my first comment(s) soon. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

List
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria So far so good. Article looks fine, I've yet to go into it detail-by-detail 13:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. 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:
 * 3 issues, marked as "pending" see below. 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Resolved. 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold: for a month till pending issues are resolved. 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I pass this article and am happy with the progress so far. 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold: for a month till pending issues are resolved. 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I pass this article and am happy with the progress so far. 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold: for a month till pending issues are resolved. 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I pass this article and am happy with the progress so far. 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ugog Nizdast! It looks like three of my nominations all got picked up in quick succession. There must be a backlog elimination drive or something. This one has been waiting for about 9 months or so, so I'm happy to see someone finally pick it up for review. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Review

 * History: Not mentioned anywhere regarding storing what and why. "he brought the concept back", here concept are you referring to? Anything can be linked to explain the relevance?
 * The idea of self-storage businesses. Here's what one of the sources say "Then he took a trip to Texas and saw how much money local developers were making slapping up ministroage... So, he took the idea back to California... CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so since it is the introduction make it somehow linked to self-storage. 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 21:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * History: "which can occur if too large a portion of the company's business is no longer related to real estate." inline cite required
 * ✅ Actually it's acceptable for multiple sentences attributed to the same source to just cite once, but I went ahead and just added the cite. CorporateM (Talk) 03:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " held an equity interest in" can anything be linked here?
 * It looks like we don't have an article on "equity interest". We do have one on equity, but it's too broad a term to be useful to link to I think (would just confuse the reader). I just took out the word "equity", so it was more plain-English rather than business jargon.CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * History#Recent : what is the relevance of "REITs are seen as an alternative to fixed income investments – bonds. REITs become less attractive to investors when interest rates rise..." for this article on a company?
 * ✅ This was added by someone else recently. I trimmed it and moved the rest of the content they added to another section. CorporateM (Talk) 03:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Financials: reads awkwardly, for better flow, merge back to "History" . Telling what the company does in the last section isn't good. Addressing this may solve my first comment too.
 * Looking at it now with your feedback in context, I think some of the section-titles/structure are not ideal, but I don't think it makes sense to merge information that is not historical in nature, into the History section. Let me think about suggesting something else. I'll also ping, because I think the current section-titles was his work. CorporateM (Talk) 03:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The last two sentences in the Financials section are inappropriate for the section; they should be moved to the History section (and, in fact, the information in the final sentence is already in the History section; the duplication should be eliminated). Everything else in the Financials section is not historical, in the sense of that specific financial results could (and should) be updated over time. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Move that History-related part. That does leave a stubby Financial section. How about making that the first section before History? since it gives a background to the company. 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Not really cirteria-related, so kept as a suggestion. 17:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (minor) Add to the History subheaders, the date range (eg Origins (1970), RELP (1970–1990) etc)
 * There is some overlap between sections actually, from a purely chronological perspective. From a style perspective, I usually prefer history sections that are divided by topic, rather than strictly on a timeline basis. CorporateM (Talk) 03:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Operations: "...who are paid close to minimum wage and may live on-site". What does the source say? the USAToday one, I've read.
 * That's a good question. I'm not sure whether I am the one that addd that. The book is not available online. I might be able to get a copy from the library next time I'm there. CorporateM (Talk) 03:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (2B) 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done as discussed below 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Operations: "Sale of these insurance policies is a "high-margin source of revenue"..." what is the purpose of these quotation marks? I didn't quite understand this statement. Insurance policies are a high source of revenue yet revenue from "tenant insurance" is less than five percent of the total revenue. Perhaps are link or clarify? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, insurance is less than 5 percent of revenues, but it has a high profit margin. I believe that part was the work of . CorporateM (Talk) 04:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove the quote marks, since you're not quoting anybody. The rest has to be clarified, quite frankly, a person like me needs to know the difference between tenant insurance, and why being less than five percent is matters here. 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought might take this item and the one below it, as he's the one with a strong interest in this topic and the author of the content. I cannot edit in controversial areas due to WP:COI anyway. But if he doesn't respond, we can figure something else out.  CorporateM (Talk) 21:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto for the very last one in the list currently regarding insurance regulatory agencies in two states. It would be better for him to respond if he's willing, as anything I say or do may result in him accusing me of COI improprieties. But for now I'd suggest we give him a week or two and move on to other things and I will take a closer look if he doesn't chime in. CorporateM (Talk) 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(2B) 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  17:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead: The last sentence says mold and poor security both of which aren't directly mentioned in the body. The main thing covered in the body is insurance claims due to damages or theft; given the present condition, it should probably just say that.
 * } 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeping as suggestion. 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Infobox: Cite ref 1, which is heavily used, its link isn't working for me.
 * ✅ When I first authored this, the 2014 annual report was the most recent for infobox data. I updated the citation and infobox data with the 2015 report as well. It gives me a long URL when I click on the report, but I think it's producing a local copy from my hard drive, so I had to link to the general annual reports page, where it can be downloaded. CorporateM (Talk) 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Insurance regulatory agencies in two states ..", which source supports this? I've briefly checked both the given ones. Where is it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (2B) 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done, discussed also below. 17:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion: I see a few issues left, of which three concern general criteria 2B/C. You said you'll require help, but no response so far; how about you, ? it shouldn't be too hard trying to address these issues which a COI editor cannot. I'm placing it on hold till then. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help, but a quick scan didn't make clear to me which pending items really involve COI issues, and which are just cleanup. I'd appreciate it if CorporateM would point out which items he thinks I need to help with, and which he thinks he can take care of himself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bulleted below and quoted directly from the GA reviewer:
 * "Insurance regulatory agencies in two states ..", which source supports this? I've briefly checked both the given ones. Where is it?" (I have not myself ever seen anything about this in any source)
 * "Lead: The last sentence says mold and poor security both of which aren't directly mentioned in the body. The main thing covered in the body is insurance claims due to damages or theft; given the present condition, it should probably just say that." (I believe I brought this up before and was shot down by the original author with COI allegations. A lot of consumer complaints were just thrown into the article, though unpaid insurance claims is the only thing the sources focus on)
 * "Sale of these insurance policies is a "high-margin source of revenue"..." what is the purpose of these quotation marks? I didn't quite understand this statement. Insurance policies are a high source of revenue yet revenue from "tenant insurance" is less than five percent of the total revenue. Perhaps are link or clarify?" (I think everything after "to conceal the burglary" is pretty undue and relies on niche, trivial sources, but what was meant is that insurance policies are only 5% of revenue, but have a high profit margin."
 * ""...who are paid close to minimum wage and may live on-site". What does the source say?" (This one is on me. It's on my to do list to obtain the offline source from the library to see what it says about this company.) ✅ (please see note below)
 * CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

America: What went wrong? source
I am at the library now and have obtained a copy of citation 23: "America what went wrong", which you previously asked me to verify. The text is now available here. It appears to support the criticisms it is used for and be reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. I feel this should be expanded upon. Just saying just that one-two employees are paid minimum sound like they're purposely ill-treating them. Say about how they practically don't use staff and the hired people just are there to keep an eye on things. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What is with all of the Dropbox references?
What is with all of the Dropbox references used in the article? They are all inaccessible which defeats the purpose of even posting a reference... They need to be replaced and never should have been posted to begin with... By itself that would preempt this article from GA standing...Of course, there are other substantial issues with this article, but that is certainly an obvious one... Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Stevenmitchell, thank you for posting your concerns, but what do you mean by "Dropbox references"? If you mean sources that are not available online, that's perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia and for Good Articles as well. The web doesn't have a number of good, reliable sources; many are found only in books or other non-electronic sources. Is there something about these references—can you give an example?—that would otherwise make them not reliable sources, or is there a specific GA criterion that you believe is being violated?


 * I'm a bit puzzled by your recent edits, which include adding "fact" templates in the lede for facts that are mentioned and sourced in the body of the article—facts in the lede typically do not need to be sourced there if they are sourced in the body unless they are considered controversial or they are quotes. Also, you add a new fact about a subbrand to the lede, yet you do not also add it to the body (GAs are not supposed to have any significant facts in the lede that are not in the body), and do not source it. If Climate Controlled is significant, it should be described in the body of the article and sourced; if it isn't, then it doesn't belong in the lede. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have deleted these recent additions. Prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * BlueMoonset, I can only assume that you and Phrartcom have never seen nor been to an actual Public Storage since Public Storage's main pitch to differentiate itself is that it is climate controlled. The other is that the 1st month is only $1. Have either of you ever seen the entity that you are offering expert opinion on and removing other editors contributions? The URLs that lead to the references are essentially Deadlinks as they are either not there at all or require a password to access them. Based on your contention of poor availability (which seems to be almost absurdly reasoned) because the web doesn't have good, reliable sources, you seem to be arguing that references can be used on Wikipedia even if they are completely unreliable because in this case "someone stored them in their own private safe where a key is unavailable and the document or text cited is unreachable or unlocatable". Dropbox is not a resource. Whomever actually posted these references, did so improperly and the references should not be used without their properly elicited citation detail. It is the equivalent of citing an unpublished paper that you are holding in the recesses of your locked garage. If everything else about the reference used is copacetic and properly formatted, then the Dropbox allusion should be removed. It also is the equivalent of posting a foreign language reference with no translation. It becomes a blind reference. Contrary to your argument, reliable sources are actually a requirement on Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Finishing review
CorporateM, are the issues flagged as Pending above coming along? This GA Review was put on hold for a month about three weeks ago. I want to facilitate if necessary. Prhartcom (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there were only four pending items left (at least that was the number in the list I that I asked for), of which CorporateM has dealt with one (the fourth item) and I have dealt with one (the third item). If you'd deal with the first two, then I think we're done, unless someone steps up and points out something else that is still pending, or brings up a new point. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John Broughton, I'm having a look at the first two of those four bulleted remaining issues as you suggest. I'm afraid I don't see a problem with either of those first two points and support ignoring them., each of the two sources provided for that sentence provide a insurance commissioner who is against the practices of the insurance companies, so these are the two "Insurance regulatory agencies in two states" (I changed the term in the article to the slightly more accurate "insurance commissioner"); , I'm not sure why you say you have not ever seen anything about insurance commissioners in any source. As for the second issue, there is no problem with the lead. All three of the company's problems mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead are also mentioned in the article body in the Theft, insurance and [mold] damages section. Can I get others to agree with me, that the article has no problem with these two points? Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I got your ping and read both sources regarding insurance commissioners. I presume the text is referring to the following excerpts:
 * “When you in fact solicit the purchase of insurance you are doing things that only licensed agents can do" - quote from insurance commissioner Jerry Whitfield source
 * "That doesn't seem right to Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler...Now that we brought this to Insurance Commissioner Kreidler's attention, that portion will be removed on future policies." source
 * For the mention of mold in the lead, I presume PRhartcom is referring to the following first sentence of the "Theft, insurance and damages" section: "In 2005, Public Storage said in a public filing that there had been "an increasing number of claims and litigation against owners and managers of rental properties relating to moisture infiltration, which can result in mold or other property damage." I am the one that added this text from a strong source in The Wall Street Journal.
 * I don't see any text on the Wikipedia page mentioning poor security, though there are some mentions of burglaries in the context of unpaid insurance claims.
 * Hopefully this helps to have the exact excerpts. If I can help in some other way let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lead point. There's a slight mention of mold and as CorporateM says nothing much about security. That's why I said to remove it. So, this and the remaining point about wages and employees remain. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed your comment here. How about this?:
 * Current: "Many locations have just one or two employees who are paid close to minimum wage and may live on-site. "
 * Proposed: Public Storage has very few employees for a company of its size. Customer access to each storage location is automated. Some locations have a husband-wife couple that live on-site and are paid close to minimum wage to "keep an eye on things." "
 * I didn't think the original language implied employees were purposely mistreated or had anything wrong with it, but either way should be fine. I'll submit it as a Request Edit if you support the proposed tweak. CorporateM (Talk) 19:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Just felt incomplete and abrupt without it. The proposed sounds good, though it can do away with the quotes since we're not attributing anybody: "...wage just to look after it" or something. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ All that's left for discussion is the Lead and the "two insurance commissioners". It's possible you'll have to fail it if there is no consensus, but I guess for now we wait patiently. Maybe will chime in on these two remaining items.  CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the GA should be failed, as it seems to me that the those two remaining issues are stated correctly and are reliably sourced, unless I am missing something, but I will defer to the GA reviewer as I greatly respect the GA process. This article has been through a lot, not to mention that the nominator has been through a lot over this article, and I remain convinced that this GAR can be resolved. Prhartcom (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's just one issue remaining and it's relatively minor imo; I'm striking it off as just a suggestion. I'm quite content and am passing this article. Besides the nominator, I also thank everyone else who pitched in. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome!! Thanks for reviewing. I would hardly say it's sourced (security issues aren't cited anywhere and the quotes from insurance commissioners involves a lot of synthesis/interpretation/undue), but to each their own. I'm happy to add another GA to my belt. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)