Talk:Andrew Schneider (journalist)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll field this one. The basics seem to be there, so I will review it in detail over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• @SounderBruce: I've gone through this once; my comments are below. Ping me when you are done with addressing them, and I will look over it again. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: I think that's everything. SounderBruce 01:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • All concerns addressed: looks good, passing shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All concerns addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issues with citation formatting

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Looks okay

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear, and spot checks do not show any violations.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Minor concerns addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues with stability

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   NA. No images appear to be available. Image is appropriately licensed to the best of my knowledge.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   NA, per above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Non-reviewer comments

Images not available? There is one right here that conceivably passes WP:NFCC with flying colors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I will admit I am not well-versed in image licensing issues, but it has always seemed to me that it is difficult to demonstrate why a free alternative does not exist to an image under copyright when the subject is a living or recently deceased individual. If you feel you can justify such a use, I will have no objections to you uploading an image, but I will not hold up a GAN over this. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is typically demonstrated by the uploader stating that they have concluded an exhaustive search for free alternatives that did not result in finding them. Since it's impossible to check if that search has in fact taken place, it must be taken on good faith. Various safeguards, such as waiting periods, have been proposed for the recently dead, but there is no consensus. I've uploaded the photo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that looks alright, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• General comment: structure is a bit odd. Three very short sections, and one very long one. I'd suggest combining "Personal life" and "death" (not a fan of one sentence sections) and possibly even both of those and early life into a single "Biography".
• Conversely, "Career" needs to be broken up, either into subsections or into multiple level two sections.
  • Done.
• Another general comment; you use single references for lengthy sections of text. Especially in places where the content may be controversial, I'd suggest duplicating the citations a few times, so you only have a few sentences per cite.
  • Added repeating references.
• A very large number of redirects in the links used; might be worth checking, though this is not critical.
• link or explain maître d'hôtel
  • Linked.
• First sentence of "Career" long and confusing, and seems to have some grammar issues...I'd suggest breaking it up into at least three sentences.
  • Broken up and hopefully patched the grammar.
• Should medical science be hyphenated?
  • Removed hyphen and added a link for good measure.
• "The following year, Schneider's co-investigation into the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its pilot health screening practices, written with Matthew Brelis, won the Press a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service." Two things: the "co-" is not needed, and you don't usually write an investigation, you perform or carry it out.
  • Reorganized.
• link or explain federal air surgeon
  • Created a redlink. I'm not well suited to explaining federal positions, so I'll put in a request for the article to be created.
• The acronym P-I needs to be mentioned when you use the full-form at its first instance.
  • Added.
• "all 18 verdicts" all of which?
  • Rearranged for clarity.
• " Nat Hentoff of The Village Voice argued that the investigation "deserves to win the Pulitzer Prize"" Tense mismatch there.
  • Modified the quote.
• "mining-related deaths in Libby, Montana for the P-I, discovering that it was caused" something off grammatically.
  • Re-wrote the sentence.
• "mining-related deaths" could also use a little more detail.
  • Swapped for "asbestos-related". An umbrella term is needed, since there were more than a few causes of death, all linked to asbestos.
• "and improperly informed workers and government agencies in time" I am not sure I understand this.
  • Re-worded.
• "and at least 375 people were diagnosed with fatal diseases caused by asbestos." So why isn't the death toll 375? I think you mean "potentially fatal".
  • Done.
• "led to the litigation of W.R. Grace" litigation against?
  • Fixed.
• "transferred funds and assets in new companies." "to new companies"?
  • Fixed.
• The sentence discussing his book is confusing, because the previous talked about Asbestos in the WTC. I think you need a phrase explaining that the book was about his previous work.
  • Added.
• "revealed that harmful asbestos-related material was in continual use in new construction and household products, and alleges" Tense mismatch.
  • Fixed.
• "put professional cooks and consumers at additional risk" this reads like corporate speak. At risk of what? And in addition to what?
  • Fixed.
• "Schneider married his first wife Carol, whom he later divorced". Very brief; is no further detail available? If not, I'd suggest rephrasing as "Schneider divorced his first wife, Carol, and later married...etc"
• I see no reason to have single sentence paragraphs at any point; just merge them into the previous paragraph.
• I'm a little concerned by a few sources. Why is this reliable?
  • HistoryLink is a government-funded history resource, functioning much like the Washington state encyclopedia, and its authors and editors are professional historians. The website is often cited by local governments, as well as major newspapers like the Seattle Times.
• It's alright to use Schneider's own work to provide a little extra detail, but you should use supporting secondary sources whenever possible; and if such are not available, use intext attribution to Schneider for those facts. "According to Schneider..."
  • Added attribution to areas I deemed necessary (claims and accusations), but left out for things like outcomes.
• Why is "food safety news" reliable?
  • The website has been mentioned and cited by greater publications (e.g. The New York Times) and was founded by the "most prominent and powerful food-safety attorney" in the U.S. Its writers, including Schneider, have experience in traditional newspapers and news agencies, as well.
    • Still not entirely certain about this, but for the information for which it is used, it is alright.
• The article is barely okay for comprehensiveness. Given its length, are you sure all readily available information is in the article? I'm wondering, in particular, about his first marriage and the reasons why he moved from place to place.
  • There wasn't all that much written in obituaries and tributes to Schneider at the time, and from what I see now there isn't much more. Journalists tend to move between papers quite often, seeking promotions or creative freedom, so it's not really unusual. I can't find much information about his first marriage, either, from online sources.
    • Not a problem at this level, but will have to be addressed if you wish to take this further. Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Image needs a caption describing the circumstances in which it was taken.
  • Added a short caption.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.