User:Seabuckthorn/sandbox (GAN notes)

Points to remember
 * It's usually better to simply leave the nomination on hold a week and let it fail at the end of that period.
 * If I think I'll take longer than usual to perform the review, or if the nominator has been waiting a very long time for a review, I may mention it.
 * I tell the nominator that I'm putting the article on hold, and that he/she has 7 days to make the needed improvements.
 * If they ask for more time, I almost always say that's fine... but it's good to have a deadline, even if it's a soft deadline.
 * Some nominators just ignore it, and I have to fail the nomination after a week.
 * Once an problem is fixed, I indicate that in some way, such as crossing out my concern, moving the issue into a "resolved" section, or using a or ✅ template.
 * If they run out of time and there are required issues that aren't resolved, and it doesn't look like they will resolve them any time soon, then I fail the nomination; but more often, everything gets taken care of.
 * A lot of Featured articles (for example Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)) cite AllMusic, so I think it should be fine.
 * Try to only mention clear errors of grammar or places where the wording is unambiguously bad, but don't bring up every case where you might have worded it differently.
 * Close paraphrasing is a serious charge, and should only be raised when there are clear duplications of more than just a few words.
 * WP:LEADCITE does indeed say "Some material ... must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned", but LEADCITE specifies that it's referring to "direct quotations and contentious material about living persons".
 * I think there are 3a concerns in that the article is very short; compare to Salt March. I think more information about the march and its place in Indian history could be added.
 * I think there are 1b MOS:LAYOUT problems in that there are too many very short paragraphs, particularly in "Aftermath". So there are important things to mention.
 * But I think you may be bringing up too many minor things that aren't necessary to change.
 * When someone isn't that great at English, I usually recommend he or she submit the article to GOCE first, and then I review it.
 * Regarding Puffery concerns, keep in mind the the lead usually does not need citations.
 * Generally, the only statements that need to be cited in the lead are particularly controversial statements and direct quotes.
 * If an article on Israel and Palestine gave a contentious direct quote from a partisan, and used verbs like "noted" or "explained", it would bias the reader into thinking that the contentious statement were true or endorsed by Wikipedia. That's why verbs like "noted" and "explained" are discouraged in these situations. But if the statement is simply factual and uncontroversial, it's fine to use "noted" or "explained", and many FAs do.
 * Wasted_Time_R, Sturmvogel_66, and Diannaa are all experienced reviewers who have specifically said that they welcome reviews by new reviewers, so any of them would be great choices.
 * TonyTheTiger is experienced and fast to fix changes, but he can also be stubborn and perhaps a little unfriendly if he disagrees with you.
 * Cirt is friendly and extremely prompt.
 * SabreBD and GregJackP are both excellent writers, though they don't communicate much.
 * Taylor_Trescott is always a good choice.
 * JG66 and Figureskatingfan (Christine) are both wonderful writers, and they both communicate very well.
 * Issues with 1b: Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE). I recommend the following revision.
 * Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
 * Traffic lights 4 states 3.png Go for it!
 * So long as every statement is sourced and worded in a NPOV manner, it's fine. I think you just have to be more careful with BLPs, being sure that the sources are good and the wording is cautious. But it's fine to include information on a living person's personal life.
 * If the lead said "This acclaimed person made fantastic contributions", then it would be puffery, and it should be reworded whether it was sourced or not. But this article said "Louis-Dreyfus has been critically acclaimed for this role", specifying the awards she won. It could be puffery to say "This acclaimed doctor", but it could be fair to say "This doctor has been acclaimed by the WHO". See what I mean? You have to look at the specific quote in context, and not just the word used, to tell if it's a problem.
 * Well, if there were a RS that said she did a terrible job playing this character, that would presumably go in the same section as the reviewer who said she did great. And since the section is meant to hold all critical reception, both positive and negative, it might seem biased to mention only the positive in the section title.
 * To some degree, it's a gray area. I'm sure it's fine to say "He noted that Delhi is in India", and many FAs do. I'm sure it's not okay to say "He noted that Russians are more valorous than Ukrainians", even if he did say that, because presumably Ukrainians would disagree. When the article says "Ken Tucker noted that the premise of a politician without influence striving for it suited itself well to a comedy", that's a gray area. Some reviewers would suggest rewording, while others would think it was fine.
 * What I wanted to avoid was insisting that the nominator use "said" every time, limiting their language and making the prose more boring, unless there is a good reason. If it's a gray area, I think "Is it necessary to change this?" And if not, I just don't want the nominator to feel like I'm picking on him, bringing up tons of unimportant issues. See what I mean?
 * Well, if there were a RS that said she did a terrible job playing this character, that would presumably go in the same section as the reviewer who said she did great. And since the section is meant to hold all critical reception, both positive and negative, it might seem biased to mention only the positive in the section title.
 * To some degree, it's a gray area. I'm sure it's fine to say "He noted that Delhi is in India", and many FAs do. I'm sure it's not okay to say "He noted that Russians are more valorous than Ukrainians", even if he did say that, because presumably Ukrainians would disagree. When the article says "Ken Tucker noted that the premise of a politician without influence striving for it suited itself well to a comedy", that's a gray area. Some reviewers would suggest rewording, while others would think it was fine.
 * What I wanted to avoid was insisting that the nominator use "said" every time, limiting their language and making the prose more boring, unless there is a good reason. If it's a gray area, I think "Is it necessary to change this?" And if not, I just don't want the nominator to feel like I'm picking on him, bringing up tons of unimportant issues. See what I mean?

Prepared statements
 * The article is very well-written in terms of the prose quality and the reference formatting. It's a very promising candidate. I've few insights to offer.
 * The RS Noticeboard (here) has consensus that about.com is not a RS. All important information that relies on this source will have to either be removed or be cited to a different source.
 * Either this section should be merged into the previous section, or else more information on the character's personal life should be added.
 * Use a different heading for section Critical acclaim. Many FAs on fictional characters refer to "Reception" or "Critical reception", which would be more neutral.
 * Fix "Parker further notes that". What follows is his interpretation, so a verb like "assesses" or "opines". In Selina Meyer.
 * Fix "Laura Bennett of The New Republic notes". This is really an opinion.
 * But really, I'm willing to assist with any article you pick.
 * Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly.
 * I'm putting the article on hold. All the best!
 * OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status.
 * Nominator: TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
 * Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly.
 * This nomination has been on hold for 7 days. I'm going to fail this nomination due to inactivity. If you resolve the above issues at a later date, feel free to renominate the article for GA status.

WP:LEAD:


 * Fix First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE).
 * Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). I recommend the following revision :

WP:LAYOUT:


 * Fix Headings and sections (MOS:BODY).
 * Use a different heading for section Early life. I recommend Early career.
 * To improve the flow of the prose, I also recommend Heading 3 Junior season to be changed to Heading 2 and likewise the other "Heading 3"s - Senior season and Rankings and comparison.
 * Fix section Personal life (MOS:PARAGRAPHS). The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Either this section should be merged into the previous section, or else more information on the character's personal life should be added.
 * Soothing statements (Civility on WP):
 * Thanks for your interest in becoming a ...!
 * You've been learning quite quickly.
 * I've been impressed with the progress you've been making at ...-related articles in particular..
 * That will give a good idea of the ..., though ... doesn't have to be that perfect ...
 * I go back and check those ... every time I ....
 * It's also extremely useful to ..., to see how to ..., and to learn about ....
 * So please read all three, ....
 * Since I'm very happy with ..., I will give you a ... which I hope will be instructive. All the best.
 * You're very welcome about my ..., but you are far too kind. In a way, I'm lazy—the more quality ... that are out there, the less I'll have to do!.
 * I'll try to let you know about any ... out there, but sometimes it's hard to know!
 * I've definitely been surprised with the passion people have shown for preferring ... over ..., or vice versa.
 * I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how strongly people feel about the ....
 * I just try to show people respect, and I try to be willing to back down when I'm not 100% sure I'm right, and I'm very willing to ask other uninvolved editors when I'm not sure.
 * That's the best advice I can give ..
 * It will go better if you ... that is not ... . But really, I'm willing to assist with any article you pick.
 * I'm not sure I agree with all of the points you raise in this ....
 * I have to say, I think I disagree with every ... you raised.
 * I hope I don't discourage you in this ... . It's great that you're doing these ..., checking the ..., and communicating with the ... . I just want to make sure that you're giving a fair ... here. I think this will be a useful learning experience. All the best.
 * Don't take it too hard! I've made lots of mistakes ... —the important thing is just to learn from them.
 * You were probably a little ..., but that happens.
 * You're doing great work ..., and I hope you don't ... . All the best,.
 * It's okay, I understand, I've had that experience myself.
 * It's good to remember to be kind to ..., and it's good to remember to be kind to yourself as well.
 * I am quite happy to assist you.
 * So if you don't mind, I'd like to ....
 * I'm starting to get worried about ... . I'm quite willing to ... myself, if you'd prefer. Or of course, it would be fine if you ... . But either way, someone should ... very soon.
 * I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some feedback that I think will improve the review.
 * Your point about ... is very good. I would also give a specific recommendation, which I added above.
 * I agree with some of your ..., but I disagree with others, and I'll try to explain why.
 * And to be honest, ... and I wanted to protect you from that.
 * Besides that, I think this is great, I agree with ....
 * Congratulations on ...!
 * I see you have ... . Once ... are all finished, you should be ready to ... ! I guess we'll ... before we ..., if that's okay with you.
 * Okay, that's fine. How about this? After you finish all the ... then I'm sure you'll be ready to ....
 * I think all those are fine. ... The others are very good. Go for it!
 * I think this was a very ... . Well done.
 * That ... looks excellent. I think it's a good idea to ... . I think all your ... are good, but I would add the following:
 * That looks great,

Notes
 * To quickfail, follow the instructions: replace the tag with, filling in the topic and page appropriately,.
 * To put the article on hold, I go to the GA nominee tag on the article talk page and change "status=onreview" to "status=onhold".
 * To pass the article, follow the instructions.
 * Replace with.
 * Copy-paste topic= and page=.
 * Update class= to GA. Save (GA in the edit summary).
 * List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the tally at the bottom of that section.
 * To fail the article, change template to
 * For instance, look at reference #1, by Moffat. If you click on the ISBN, you go to a page where you can scroll down and click "Find this book at Google Book Search online database". When I click there, I get to this page, where I can see more about the book. Note that reference #1 supports a paragraph that talks about places called Devana, Alauna, etc. At the Google Books page I can search "From inside the book" for "Alauna", and I get to this page, where I see snippets of individual pages where "Alauna" is mentioned. It is indeed mentioned in pages 268-270, and I can see that many of the facts in that paragraph are indeed in the source. This is one way to check the sources. (Although if you already know the nominator to be reliable, you may not need to check as carefully.)


 * GA 1:.
 * GA 1a:.
 * GA 1b:.
 * GA 2:.
 * GA 2a:.
 * GA 2b:.
 * GA 2c:.
 * GA 3:.
 * GA 3a:.
 * GA 3b:.
 * GA 4:.
 * GA 5:.
 * GA 6:.

Issues with 1b: The lead ...


 * To collapse a section, use at the top and  at the bottom.

My sandboxes (for my reference)


 * GAN article copy
 * GAN analysis template
 * GAN checklist
 * GAN quicklinks
 * GAN training
 * GAN final template
 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6