Talk:Samuel Conway/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article. This is my first review so by all means tell me if I am doing something wrong. RP9 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I corrected many of the prose issues, a few remain - honor is US English and humour is UK English  - "He represents furry fans to science fiction fandom and the wider world, and gives talks on presenting furry fandom to the public." Could you make this more clear?  - Unnecessary red links should be removed. (Don't worry about this I am just being picky.)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Lead, headings and formatting look good. - One sentence paragraphs should be expanded. - A see also section may be helpful.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Sources are placed correctly and where appropriate however the sources themselves need work.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Sources 2, 12, 16, 33 and 43 do not seem reliable. "Conway is the author of eleven professional publications and claims three patents" and "He was also a director of the Great Valley Nature Center." need non-primary sources.  5, 6, 8, 35 and 40 do not work but appear to be reliable.  7 provides no context and I am not sure if it is reliable.  19, 20 and 21 links do not work but I am quite sure are reliable.  22 needs to be linked to an archive and is reliable.  The whole MAD Scientist Network section needs better sources.  I do not have access to 48 but it seems reliable.
 * C. No original research:
 * All facts are sourced but not all the sources are reliable.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The article mentions and goes into detail about what he is notable for.
 * B. Focused:
 * The Other activities section is rather extraneous. Perhaps it could be condensed into one detailed paragraph or merged with other parts of the article? This would also fix the MoS compliance.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Of the sources that are reliable, the information is balanced. Sources need to be fixed before a final say.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Stable, most reverts are due to vandalism.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are tagged properly and all are free.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Plenty of images are provided. Captions are descriptive and relevant.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article needs a lot of work, especially the sources. Because I believe the sources can be fixed in a timely manner, I am putting the nomination on hold. I can help find sources. RP9 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Passed! This definitely deserves to be a GA article. Congratulations! RP9 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prose, focus and MoS

 * honor is US English and humour is UK English
 * Well, honor is that way because "guest of honor" is a specific phrase used by conventions. Humour there is because I am British, but I would be willing to change it since this is about a U.S. citizen.
 * Actually honor appears in the article twice (in the Vocalist section). Both times its used its part of a phrase. However I find this and this to be rather ironic. Do what feels right. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have extracted the "u" from "humour".


 * "He represents furry fans to science fiction fandom and the wider world, and gives talks on presenting furry fandom to the public." Could you make this more clear?
 * Probably. I was trying to be concise, but it is talking about two slightly different things.
 * I've separated the two - the second has been placed in a section below. On second thought, I've just cut the bit about representation. It tells rather than shows, and there's plenty of showing to make it superfluous.
 * Red links should be removed.
 * Which and why? They seem to be to topics that should ideally exist (arguably some of the companies are non-notable). Some do not, but that is not the fault of this article. Being picky, "few or no redlinks" is a FA requirement derived from the MoS for linking, which is not one of the six GA MoS criteria. I can however try to create some of them as stubs - they are relevant to WP:FURRY anyway.
 * All I really meant was, remove any that will probably never be created. Sofawolf Press, ConClave and HistoriMorphs for instance should stay linked. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe - indeed, I should certainly stub those. As for the others: I've removed indolyne (not to be confused with indoline) and also Avid Therapeutics (given that it was bought out in 1997 by Triangle Pharmaceuticals, who were themselves acquired by Gilead in 2003), Message Pharmaceuticals (died in 2004 as best I can gather) and Cerexagri (merged with United Phosphorus). Never is a long time; and even those I thought non-notable may not be. For example, West Pharmaceutical Services sounds pretty small and boring, but it's actually an 85-year-old public company on the New York Stock Exchange and has many potential stories to be told about it. Joe Mayhew has links from elsewhere, others are published that may be written about (even if automatically) in the future. I replaced the link to the illustrator of Six with their fandom name and an explanatory link in the External links section; they do not go by their full name in the fandom, though you can confirm it on their website. MadSci actually had an article, it just wasn't named the same thing. The journals should all have articles in time.


 * One sentence paragraphs should be expanded. The Other activities section is rather extraneous. Perhaps it could be condensed into one detailed paragraph or merged with other parts of the article?
 * Agreed. Can probably merge some of those in the other interests section, I was trying to make it fit layout-wise but it probably makes more sense just as a section.
 * I've now done this.
 * It flows much better now. RP9 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A see also section may be helpful.
 * Do you (or anyone) have suggestions for articles not already mentioned in the body? The navbox below provides all the furry topics I can think of that are potentially relevant. I would link 2, probably in the body, but his article has been deleted.
 * If you can't think of any, then it is not needed. RP9 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)