Talk:PJ Haarsma/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I have made some copyediting and formating changes to the article.

• Replaced deprocated decorative pullquotes and quotes with the currently accepable formats

Hi, Mattisse. I am curious as to why you feel that the cquote format (i.e. pull quote, the one which was used for Haarsma's quote about The Softwire) is less acceptable than "currently acceptable formats". It seems to me that altering that format into a simple, quotebox format removes an element of professionalism which was present before. If Wikipedia does not accept the pull quote, then why is a pull quote explained, illustrated, and featured in Wikipedia's desciption of itself? I believe that I strongly disagree with your opinion on this matter, and believe that the pull quote should be reinserted: It not only helps the overall visual appearance of the artcile, but also helps to emphasize the importance of what Haarsma is saying: why are we here, and why are we staying here?. I believe this particular query is very dramatic, and worth highlighting.__Dixie Hag2 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They used to be fashionable, but since every unnecessary image represents a call to the server, they have been discouraged, just as those image check marks have been discourage on FAC and other pages. If you look at recent FA (Wikipedia's best) you will not find them as they are considered over-the-top. But since you are not going for FA status, I don't care. You can put them back if you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I will leave a decision as to whether or not pull quotes should be used to a consensus of opinions. I have expressed mine already, and note that their stylizing can be altered in the blink of an eye. So until PJ Haarsma becomes a candidate for FA, there really is little problem. I was under the mistaken impression that your edit had been a necessary condition of your review.–Dixie Hag2 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have been responsible for placing the pull quotes. After reading through this short discussion, I see no problem with eliminating them in favor of the Featured Article format. Toby Ornott (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Made footnotes out of the external links in the body of the article
• Made some slight wording changes, removed inappropriate bolding, and other minor changes —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• All the edits were except removing cquote from the pullquote. Cquote is not allowed in place of blockquote, as blockquotes are prohibited from having quote marks in them. See: MOS:Quotations. "Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes)." —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article looks good. My comments are as follows:

Comments

• Are the awards listed at the end for PJ Haarsma personally or for the Kids Need to Read foundation in general?
• The article does seem to turn into a description of the Kids Need to Read foundation in general and stray away from a focus on PJ Haarsma, whose biography it is. Can you refocus the content more on him?
• Is there more you can say about his behavior, that is information the pertains to him, rather than the foundation in general?

I too have had a feeling that there is a bit too much KNTR info (i.e. number of words), and I believe that Kethra will discover by editing some of the KNTR material out, into her anticipated, separate article on the subject that this will bring the focus back more into Haarsma's "behavior". I like the idea of finding more "behavior material", as well as more biographical. I believe both will be good input.ThsQ (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if something like the following changes are made, the focus of the article will return to PJ Haarsma:

1. shift the subsection "The Rings of Orbis game" lower, just above "Awards".
2. edit out everything in "The Kids Need to Read" beginning with sentence "Fundraising efforts have expanded to include support by various sci-fi businesses and organizations" (...) "SpazDog Comics and Quantum Mechanix have donated the proceeds from several item sales to KNTR"; then again, edit-out from "KNTR has made book donations to thirty-nine schools and libraries in addition to three multiple library systems...."

This is not to imply that the material is extraneous; it is just an effort to follow ThsQ's and Mattisse's reasoning, to which I slightly agree. The "edited material" then can be reinserted into the up-coming article on The Kids Need to Read Foundation. I made the alteration, then reverted it in order for everyone to compare the differences by using the Old version versus the New version history links. Anne Teedham (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Other than the foundation, is there other biographical behavior that can be added to the article?
• The lead, per WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article, so more should be added to it to reflect the article content.

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattisse! For the review and good marks! I'm very excited that this article made it to GA status so fast! Thanks to all contributors! I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more active here on it. Busy life...but I'm hoping to spend more time here on The Softwire and plans for The Kids Need to Read Foundation article. I'll be taking all of your above comments into consideration when I work on the main KNTR article. Thanks again!--Kethra^{talk} 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!--Anne Teedham (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)