Talk:Statue of Edward Colston/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this.

Summary

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):  Text has been copied from other websites (Bristol Post; The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; BBC News, etc.), warranting an immediate fail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead section / infobox

 * Link philanthropist
 * ✅ ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * George Floyd protests doesn’t lead where some readers outside the UK might expect it to.
 * Hmm, do you suggest it should link to the global George Floyd protests instead? If sticking with the UK ones, which I think makes sense contextually, rewording the text to "George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom" feels slightly excessive? I do see what you mean, though. Any idea what the best resolution may be? Maybe "domestic George Floyd protests" or something? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead section needs to be expanded to enable it to be a proper summary of the main article. The lead and the infobox should include: a description of the statue ✅ – a summary of who Edward Colston was ❌ – the statue's history prior to the controversy surrounding it ✅ but expand – objections during the 1990s  ✅ but expand – objections prior to 2020, including prosed rewording  ❌ – events of 7 June  ✅ but expand – the UK government’s reaction to the events ❌ – the reactions of the authorities ❌ – its retrieval ✅.
 * Regarding the lead, I've previously been unsuccessful in convincing other contributors to expand the lead, though I'd like to on some parts (particularly early history and the controversy). I will try make a change in that regard. Though, regarding reactions to the events of 7th June (particularly of the government/authorities), they pretty much did nothing actionable, just made some comments (in individual capacities). Although the sub-section with reactions is quite long, I don't think any are relevant enough (in the overall context of the statue) for the lead, or any particularly more relevant than another. I don't think the government itself took a formal position on the event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Description

 * There should be a introduction to Edward Colston (full name and linked) here, even if a section about him follows.
 * Unlink dolphin (common word – MOS:OL).
 * ... the four plaques‍… - the section says little about these, but there is information available from Ref 2 (Historic England), which I would add.
 * ... the four plaques‍… - the section says little about these, but there is information available from Ref 2 (Historic England), which I would add.
 * ... the four plaques‍… - the section says little about these, but there is information available from Ref 2 (Historic England), which I would add.

Background

 * Link slave trade; philanthropist.
 * Who was John Cassidy?
 * ✅ added brief intro
 * Historic England described the statue… - Ref 2 gives a full statement of the reasons for it being listed, which imo is worth quoting more fully, or perhaps entirely.
 * ...between 1680 and 1692. - Ref 3 (Morgan) doesn’t seem to verify the second date.
 * ✅ Fixed using the History of Parliament source here, which verifies. I think the Wilkins source should also verify. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ... his home city of Bristol. - Ref 4 (History of Parliament Online) appears to contradict this, saying “he never made his home in or near the city”.	Which is correct?
 * Source 5 (Oxford DNB) says this: Until that point Edward Colston had been brought up in Bristol and probably at Winterbourne, south Gloucestershire, where his father had an estate., moving to London in ~1645 during the English civil war. Source 4 says: Though Bristol became the primary focus for his attention in later years, he never made his home in or near the city. I think this means to say that that he didn't make Bristol his home in his later years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ...84,000 slaves – I can’t find this figure in Ref 4 (History of Parliament Online).
 * I would name (and link) the said bishop, Charles Ellicott.
 * ✅, and got a name and source for mayor also
 * "Colston Day" - I'm not sure why this is in quotes.
 * ✅ removed quotes
 * ...he was seen as a philanthropist. - is not quite what Ref 5 (Morgan) describes Colston as—“one of the most famous philanthropic benefactors [of Bristol].”
 * Ref 6 (BBC) doesn’t appear to verify the text.
 * Ditto Ref 7 (BBC).
 * The link to a drinking fountain doesn’t lead where you would expect it to.
 * I can’t work out why the subsection (‘Statue’) is placed within the ‘Background’ section. Surely the ‘Description’ and ‘Statue’ sections need to be together in one section (e.g. ‘The statue’), with a separate section (maybe called ‘Edward Colston’) following it.
 * I can’t work out why the subsection (‘Statue’) is placed within the ‘Background’ section. Surely the ‘Description’ and ‘Statue’ sections need to be together in one section (e.g. ‘The statue’), with a separate section (maybe called ‘Edward Colston’) following it.

Controversy

 * Who is H. J. Wilkins?
 * "slavery was generally condoned in England—indeed, throughout Europe—by churchmen, intellectuals and the educated classes" – this sounds like a person is being quoted, and so the source of the quote should be named.
 * ...the installation Commemoration Day by Carole Drake – do you mean ‘Carole Drake’s installation Commemoration Day’?


 * Comments not yet completed.

Toppling and removal

 * Amend Police Superintendent Andy Bennett to 'Bennett' after he has been introduced.
 * Who is Krishnan Guru-Murthy?
 * I would consider combining the two short subsections, as they are each only one paragraph long.
 * ... the Tower Hamlets council… - amend to ‘Tower Hamlets Borough Council, and link this.
 * The second paragraph needs to be rewritten so that Stephenson is ‘introduced’ next to his name.
 * Ditto Marc Quinn and Robert Milligan.
 * The link to Mayor of London is not needed, as the following link is sufficient.
 * man is redundant (in ‘enslaved man’).


 * Comments not yet completed.

Stopping at this point
I'm stopping the review at this point, as there seems to be enough copying of material from other sources for me to fail the article (see the above summary). Before re-nominating, please use this link to help to address the issue. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , having checked the tool, it seems to be flagging up mainly the two quotes of the plaques, making up the majority (if not all) of the %, as well as a smaller % by the reaction quotes. But, as far as I can see, it's only flagging up the stuff we're directly quoting of people, not non-quote text. I'm not sure how we can get around including the quote of the plaque, without including the quote of the plaque, unless we should remove it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , to test that out, I created User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox2 which has the two quotes of the plaques, and the reaction section, stripped. the result on CVDetector, which shows no copyvios (Medium is reverse-copyvio, and the rest is flagging up eg "Society of Merchant Ventures", rather than any copyvios). I don't particularly think a quick-fail for copyvio is fair given that. And I don't think it's a copyvio of a source to embed the direct quote a public figure or the plaque, even if we should be trimming down on them as a matter of content, since none of the news sources have any rights on that quote/wording? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I am in error, I apologise. If you wish to, please address the comments I have spent time producing and then consider re-nominating the article, and I am sure it will then do well. Good luck! Amitchell125 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)