Talk:USCO/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No obvious areas needing work tags.
 * Good sources. I had some concern about citing the Stern book over 30 times when just reading the reference list, though looking at the source it is a reliable book with a good level of focus on the subject at hand, and is understandably used for sourcing information.
 * Interesting article, generally well-written.
 * Needs an infobox.
 * Needs image(s).
 * Minor punctuation/grammar errors to be fixed throughout.


 * GA criteria
 * 1. Style — needs moderate work
 * 2. Verifiability — needs some work
 * 3. Coverage — needs moderate work
 * 4. Neutral — meets criteria
 * 5. Stability — meets criteria
 * 6. Illustration — needs some work
 * 7. Copyright — meets criteria


 * Lead
 * The lead contains a lot of information, but it is not too much. It aptly summarises the key progresses of the collective and its notability, giving brief explanations where needed. There is no excessive description.
 * Consider rephrasing the second sentence of the lead. "USCO, an acronym for Us Company or the Company of Us, was most active during the years 1964–66." It appears to refer to USCO as an acronym (subordinate clause) even when describing it as a collective (main clause). Possibly break into two sentences: "The name USCO is an acronym for Us Company or the Company of Us. The collective was most active during the years 1964–66." — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1a "the prose is clear"). ✅-JJMM
 * The last sentence of the lead seems unnecessary. It tells the reader what the founders of the collective did afterwards. It is not vital information for the article unless those other foundations were directly connected to USCO. — To meet coverage criteria (GA criteria 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail")✅-JJMM


 * USCO members
 * If the founding members are being listed here, consider if they also need to be named in the lead, or whether the names could be only stated once. Are the names important enough in the world of Modern Art Collectives to carry weight in the lead? — style suggestion ✅Yes, the names should be kept in the lead-JJMM
 * The sentence "Judi Stern stated, "We dreamed collectively."" seems rather orphaned. Perhaps add more context to it, e.g. "Of her fellow members, Judi Stern stated "We dreamed collectively."" — style suggestion ✅-JJMM
 * The second sentence on Yalkut is strong and informative, and good to be separated from the sentence introducing him. However, it is a list that announces itself. Consider rephrasing, so instead of "Yalkut created the following films for USCO events in the mid-sixties, some in collaboration with USCO members: Turn, Turn, Turn (USCO did the soundtrack), Ghost Rev, Diffraction Film, and Down By the Riverside." it could be "Yalkut created several films for USCO events in the mid-sixties, some in collaboration with USCO members, including Turn, Turn, Turn (for which USCO did the soundtrack), Ghost Rev, Diffraction Film, and Down By the Riverside." — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1b "complies with the manual of style guidelines")✅-JJMM
 * Perhaps explain how Stewart Brand's connections to cyberculture is relevant to USCO. Did cyberculture develop/affect the USCO? — To meet coverage criteria (GA criteria 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail")
 * Brand's multimedia work with USCO was an aspect of cyberculture's development. USCO came beforehand. Added ref about Brand and Durkee's connection to ARC and early Internet culture. ✅-JJMM


 * California and New York background (1948–1964)
 * Stern background section well written.
 * Verbs don't agree in the first Callahan sentence. Perhaps change "Michael Callahan had been technical director of the San Francisco Tape Music Center, when he met Stern in 1963 through the SF Tape Music Center's Morton Subotnick via Michael McClure." to "Michael Callahan was the technical director of the San Francisco Tape Music Center when he met Stern in 1963 through the center's Morton Subotnick via Michael McClure." — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1a "the spelling and grammar are correct"). ✅-JJMM
 * Considering combining the second and last sentences of the Callahan section for reading fluency. — style suggestion ✅-JJMM
 * Durkee background section also well written, but suggest changing "living in New York City as a renowned Pop artist and friend of Robert Indiana" to "living in New York City as a renowned Pop artist, and was a friend of Robert Indiana". — style suggestion, but on the edge of GA criteria 1a "the prose is clear". ✅-JJMM


 * New York (1964–1966)
 * Good writing style, informative.
 * The first and last quotations in this section ("Without our names, we decided to call ourselves 'USCO', the company of Us, because we were anonymous artists." and "Most of our work was involved in two things: Changing consciousness...and changing the world.") would serve better as in-line quotations incorporated into the prose. — style suggestion, style criteria/not required, but recommended (GA criteria 1b "complies with the manual of style guidelines"), quotations suggestion (GA criteria 2 "inline citations")
 * There are many terms in the second paragraph which should be linked to their respective articles. — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1 "appropriate use of wikilinks") ✅-JJMM
 * The third section could use some expansion, if possible, on several of the events it mentions. — suggestion edging on required to meet coverage criteria (GA criteria 3a "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"; GA criteria 3 "The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.")
 * The same goes for the final paragraph-sentence "Judi Stern and Barbara Durkee developed innovative techniques for silk-screening USCO posters." — this requires expansion to meet criteria, or should be incorporated into a previous paragraph of the section.


 * New York and New Mexico (1967–1968)
 * The first paragraph, besides its first sentence, is dubious in its relevance to the article. — to discuss
 * Can the second paragraph be expanded? Possibly retitle section as "USCO after the Durkees' departure" or similar.


 * changed this section and re-titled sections for clarity ✅-JJMM


 * Post-USCO (1969 to present)
 * The first and second paragraphs seem irrelevant. — to discuss
 * Can the rest of the section be expanded? Possibly retitle section as "Retrospective" or similar.


 * Paragraphs are kept since relevant to USCO's legacy. ✅-JJMM


 * Verbal American Landscape, Contact, and McLuhan
 * This section is well written, but appears to be about Stern and Callahan's work before USCO. However, it does seem important in the foundation of the collective, so the section should be further up for chronology, and its relevance should be explicitly described earlier in the section (as it is presently only strongly implied, and only in the last two paragraphs). — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1b "it complies with the manual of style guidelines"), coverage criteria (GA criteria 3b "it stays focused on the topic"), and verifiability criteria (GA criteria 2b, citations for "controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", and GA criteria 2c "it contains no original research")


 * moved section up for chronological clarity ✅-JJMM


 * Psychedelic Explorations and Expanded Cinema
 * The first paragraph seems to be about the group before formation, and should be moved further up chronologically — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1b "it complies with the manual of style guidelines")


 * moved section up for chronological clarity ✅-JJMM


 * The event of the second paragraph has already been described, but not expanded upon, in the "New York (1964-1966)" section. The paragraph, as it is not overly-long, should be incorporated into the previous section. — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1 "good organization of the article into sections") ✅-JJMM
 * The third and fourth paragraphs are also about the time spent in New York, but long enough to have a subsection within the previous section. — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1 "good organization of the article into sections")
 * The list at the end of the third section is too long. Consider creating an actual list or table, or removing some of the names. — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1b "it complies with the manual of style guidelines")✅-JJMM
 * A quotation in the fourth paragraph could be converted to inline with prose description and explanation: "Mekas asked, "What is the strobe light all about?," and Durkee replied, "Strobe is the digital trip."" Perhaps change it to "When Mekas asked about the strobe lighting, Durkee said that "[s]trobe is [a] digital trip."" — style suggestion, style criteria/not required, but recommended (GA criteria 1b "complies with the manual of style guidelines"), quotations suggestion (GA criteria 2 "inline citations")


 * The World
 * Strong section, though should probably also be included as a subsection in the New York section. — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1 "good organization of the article into sections")
 * moved section up for chronological clarity ✅-JJMM


 * One of the sentences is too rambling, and uses "and" multiple times. It should be rewritten. Perhaps change "USCO used around twenty to thirty slides and one of the first video projectors to project superimposed images and 16mm film onto the crowd, and Callahan built a large-scale programmer to control the slide machines." to "USCO used around twenty to thirty slides with one of the first video projectors to project superimposed images and 16mm film onto the crowd; Callahan built a large-scale programmer to control the slide machines." — To meet style criteria (GA criteria 1a "the prose is clear and concise")✅-JJMM


 * There are a number of issues, however, it does not need any extensive work to reach Good article level. Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * With consultation, I would also like to being up some other issues:
 * I expressed concern about how quotations are incorporated, with several of these coming from the Stern book, which I also mentioned above. However, a check shows a high possibility of copy violation from this source. This suggests that the facts from the book are not paraphrased, but copied directly. The report shows 25 areas of the Wikipedia article that appear to be copied; of these, 6 are quotations, 10 are proper nouns alone, but the remaining 9 are all phrases of substantial length or entire sentences that come directly from the source. These will need to be rephrased or otherwise remedied.
 * I am also concerned about the use of warholstars.org — we can question what makes it a reliable source, and a report also shows a smaller but not insignificant chance of copy violations. And, in this case, the majority of the instances (5/8) are direct copies of sentences from the source. This also needs to be fixed. ✅-JJMM
 * Regarding sources, there are some citations where the book sources don't provide page numbers. This is implicitly required to fulfil criteria 2a says "enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source".
 * The "External links" section needs to go below the References for Criteria 1b.
 * Some parts of the article have multiple sources linked to them; sometimes this is necessary for different statements in sentences, but can also be an indicator that sources contradict or are not considered reliable on their own. I'd suggest a review of such citations.

I'll put the review on hold pending issues being addressed. Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment
Kingsif, this review has been on hold a few hours short of a month without any response, despite two automated notifications to the nominator's talk page. Indeed, nominator James James Morrison Morrison's most recent edit was over three months ago, in June. At this point, it's probably time to close the nomination, and perhaps tag the article for either close paraphrasing or possible copyvio, based on the final set of comments above, since both are a serious matter, or ask someone who typically deals with copyvios like Diannaa to take a look at the article to see just how serious the problem is. (Kingsif, I don't understand why you added a seventh criterion to the six GA ones, "Copyright" (which is covered under 2d of the official criteria), and especially why you say "meets criteria" when you also say further down that there are nine copied phrases or sentences that need to be remedied.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably time to close, since there has been nothing. I like to separate copyright just for clarity for myself, though I’m not sure why I said it meets criteria. I’d definitely tag it for close paraphrasing, but if there are particular users like who have a lot of experience with copyvios, I’d rather leave it to them. I’ll close it when not on mobile. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The overlap with this page consists almost entirely of quotations. With this site it's a list of locations. There's no copyright issue here that needs clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Update
I checked off the copy edits I completed, based on the suggestions above. Thank you. JJMM (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Still needs: an infobox and image(s). Could use help from other editors. JJMM (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)